Gun Past Meets Gun Present

Who made the following statement?

"The purpose and goal of the law at hand are to get firearms that have done so much damage from the hands of unauthorized persons and to do away with the instability and ambiguity of the law that previously existed in this area. The difficult task was to find the appropriate limits between this necessity of the state on the one hand and the important interests of the weapons industry that was employing a large number of workers and had been heavily damaged through the peace treaty, the interests of the legal sporting industry, and the personal freedom of the individual."

Barack Obama? Eric Holder? Nancy Pelosi? Dianne Feinstein? Joe Biden? Rahm Emanuel? Chuck Schumer? Michael Bloomberg?

No.

It was Reichskommissar Hermann Emil Kuenzer, the Nazi "Disarmament Czar." And, notice how personal freedom was LAST on his list of important interests.

Sounds a lot like the authoritarian gun control narrative being promulgated today, doesn't it?

Kuenzer explained in notices published in several German newspapers of the day, that because state governments had failed to enact sufficiently comprehensive gun ownership restrictions, the national legislature would take matters into its own hands and enforce one law applicable to the entire German nation. Then, in a statement that could believably come from the mouth of any of the above current social engineers, Kuenzer delivered the rationale for bypassing state prerogatives and the need for a nationwide gun regulation:

"Remarkably, the 1928 law was regarded by many to be a liberalization of gun laws and a step toward deregulation. This perception was manufactured and promoted by the government. The prevailing theory in Berlin was that if the opposition could be silenced by the passage of purportedly more permissive gun control laws, then strict enforcement would go unnoticed and the spirit of the law could quietly and quickly overpower the letter and allow even authoritarian control of civilian weapon ownership."

Was this law truly more "progressive," as Kuezner claimed? The disarmament of the population certainly did progress rapidly. As legal scholar Stephen P. Halbrook wrote in an article, Nazi Firearms Law and the disarming of the German Jews, published in 2000 in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law:

"Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law. Passed by a liberal republic, this law ensured that the police had records of all firearms acquisitions (or at least all lawful ones) and that the keeping and bearing of arms were subject to police approval. This firearms control regime was quite useful to the new government that came to power a half decade later."

Read more about the distinct parallels of the disarmament efforts of National Socialism and the United States of America in Joe Wolverton's Mar. 18, 2013 article in The New American: Gun past meets present: right-wing political pundits have been mocked by the left for comparing present gun control schemes to those used by the Nazis to ensure a passive populace. You decide.

Also, listen to the radio broadcast of Joe Wolverton explaining the profound parallels on his May 23rd, 2013 interview on Off The Grid Radio. Joe addresses the battle of the Second Amendment that is ongoing in America and the disarmament acts that took place in Nazi Germany. The host states, “I think our listeners really need to know how closely Nazi Germany resembles our country today.” Joe goes on to discuss the progression of firearm laws that threaten to thrust America down the same destructive path. Listen Here (1:03:17)

Those who don't know history truly are doomed to repeat it. Therefore, history repeats itself.

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." — Patrick Henry

I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

March 2013

Edward J. Erler
California State University, San Bernardino
Originally published at: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp  [Printable PDF]

This is the most compelling and thought-provoking op-ed piece I have ever read regarding our natural rights, by professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, Edward J. Erler, which brings light to the absolute hysteria of the current gun control debate.

Professor Erler highlights the necessity of not only the collective Second Amendment right, as per the assertions of the Framers of our Constitution, but also the fundamental prerequisite of the individual natural right of self-preservation and of human nature, reaching to the very heart of constitutional principles—to First Principles.

EDWARD J. ERLER is professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino. He earned his B.A. from San Jose State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from the Claremont Graduate School. He has published numerous articles on constitutional topics in journals such as Interpretation, the Notre Dame Journal of Law, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. He was a member of the California Advisory Commission on Civil Rights from 1988-2006 and served on the California Constitutional Revision Commission in 1996. He is the author of The American Polity and co-author of The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on February 13, 2013, at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

We are currently mired in a frantic debate about the rights of gun owners. One example should suffice to prove that the debate has become hysterical: Second Amendment supporters, one prominent but less than articulate member of Congress alleges, have become “enablers of mass murder.”

Special animus has been directed against so-called assault rifles. These are semi-automatic, not automatic weapons—the latter have been illegal under federal law since the 1930s—because they require a trigger pull for every round fired. Some semi-automatic firearms, to be sure, can be fitted with large-capacity magazines. But what inspires the ire of gun control advocates seems to be their menacing look—somehow they don’t appear fit for polite society. No law-abiding citizen could possibly need such a weapon, we are told—after all, how many rounds from a high-powered rifle are needed to kill a deer? And we are assured that these weapons are not well-adapted for self-defense—that only the military and the police need to have them.

Now it’s undeniable, Senator Dianne Feinstein to the contrary notwithstanding, that semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 are extremely well-adapted for home defense—especially against a crime that is becoming more and more popular among criminals, the home invasion. Over the past two decades, gun ownership has increased dramatically at the same time that crime rates have decreased. Combine this with the fact that most gun crimes are committed with stolen or illegally obtained weapons, and the formula to decrease crime is clear: Increase the number of responsible gun owners and prosecute to the greatest extent possible under the law those who commit gun-related crimes or possess weapons illegally.

Consider also that assault rifles are rarely used by criminals, because they are neither easily portable nor easily concealed. In Chicago, the murder capital of America—a city with draconian gun laws—pistols are the weapon of choice, even for gang-related executions. But of course there are the horrible exceptions—the mass shootings in recent years—and certainly we must keep assault weapons with high-capacity magazines out of the hands of people who are prone to commit such atrocities.

The shooters in Arizona, Colorado, and Newtown were mentally ill persons who, by all accounts, should have been incarcerated. Even the Los Angeles Times admits that “there is a connection between mental illness and mass murder.” But the same progressives who advocate gun control also oppose the involuntary incarceration of mentally ill people who, in the case of these mass shootings, posed obvious dangers to society before they committed their horrendous acts of violence. From the point of view of the progressives who oppose involuntary incarceration of the mentally ill—you can thank the ACLU and like-minded organizations—it is better to disarm the entire population, and deprive them of their constitutional freedoms, than to incarcerate a few mentally ill persons who are prone to engage in violent crimes.

And we must be clear—the Second Amendment is not about assault weapons, hunting, or sport shooting. It is about something more fundamental. It reaches to the heart of constitutional principles—it reaches to first principles. A favorite refrain of thoughtful political writers during America’s founding era held that a frequent recurrence to first principles was an indispensable means of preserving free government—and so it is.

The Whole People Are the Militia

The Second Amendment reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The immediate impetus for the amendment has never been in dispute. Many of the revolutionary generation believed standing armies were dangerous to liberty. Militias made up of citizen-soldiers, they reasoned, were more suitable to the character of republican government. Expressing a widely held view, Elbridge Gerry remarked in the debate over the first militia bill in 1789 that “whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia.”

The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”

The principal constitutional debate leading up to the Heller decision was about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” was an individual right or a collective right conditioned upon service in the militia. As a general matter, of course, the idea of collective rights was unknown to the Framers of the Constitution—and this consideration alone should have been decisive. We have James Madison’s own testimony that the provisions of the Bill of Rights “relate [first] . . . to private rights.”

The notion of collective rights is wholly the invention of the Progressive founders of the administrative state, who were engaged in a self-conscious effort to supplant the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution. For these Progressives, what Madison and other Founders called the “rights of human nature” were merely a delusion characteristic of the 18th century. Science, they held, has proven that there is no permanent human nature—that there are only evolving social conditions. As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts. This is the real origin of today’s gun control hysteria—the idea that professional police forces and the military have rendered the armed citizen superfluous; that no individual should be responsible for the defense of himself and his family, but should leave it to the experts. The idea of individual responsibilities, along with that of individual rights, is in fact incompatible with the Progressive vision of the common welfare.

This way of thinking was wholly alien to America’s founding generation, for whom government existed for the purpose of securing individual rights. And it was always understood that a necessary component of every such right was a correspondent responsibility. Madison frequently stated that all “just and free government” is derived from social compact—the idea embodied in the Declaration of Independence, which notes that the “just powers” of government are derived “from the consent of the governed.” Social compact, wrote Madison, “contemplates a certain number of individuals as meeting and agreeing to form one political society, in order that the rights, the safety, and the interests of each may be under the safeguard of the whole.” The rights to be protected by the political society are not created by government—they exist by nature—although governments are necessary to secure them. Thus political society exists to secure the equal protection of the equal rights of all who consent to be governed. This is the original understanding of what we know today as “equal protection of the laws”—the equal protection of equal rights.

Each person who consents to become a member of civil society thus enjoys the equal protection of his own rights, while at the same time incurring the obligation to protect the rights of his fellow citizens. In the first instance, then, the people are a militia, formed for the mutual protection of equal rights. This makes it impossible to mistake both the meaning and the vital importance of the Second Amendment: The whole people are the militia, and disarming the people dissolves their moral and political existence.

Arms and Sovereignty

The Preamble to the Constitution stipulates that “We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.” It is important to note that the people establish the Constitution; the Constitution does not establish the people. When, then, did “we the people” become a people? Clearly Americans became a people upon the adoption of its first principles of government in the Declaration of Independence, which describes the people both in their political capacity, as “one people,” and in their moral capacity, as a “good people.” In establishing the Constitution, then, the people executed a second contract, this time with government. In this contract, the people delegate power to the government to be exercised for their benefit. But the Declaration specifies that only the “just powers” are delegated. The government is to be a limited government, confined to the exercise of those powers that are fairly inferred from the specific grant of powers.

Furthermore, the Declaration specifies that when government becomes destructive of the ends for which it is established—the “Safety and Happiness” of the people—then “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” This is what has become known as the right of revolution, an essential ingredient of the social compact and a right which is always reserved to the people. The people can never cede or delegate this ultimate expression of sovereign power. Thus, in a very important sense, the right of revolution (or even its threat) is the right that guarantees every other right. And if the people have this right as an indefeasible aspect of their sovereignty, then, by necessity, the people also have a right to the means to revolution. Only an armed people are a sovereign people, and only an armed people are a free people—the people are indeed a militia.

The Declaration also contains an important prudential lesson with respect to the right to revolution: “Prudence . . . will dictate,” it cautions, “that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” It is only after “a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object,” and when that object “evinces a design to reduce [the People] to absolute Despotism,” that “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Here the Declaration identifies the right of revolution, not only as a right of the people, but as a duty as well—indeed, it is the only duty mentioned in the Declaration.

The prudential lessons of the Declaration are no less important than its assertion of natural rights. The prospect of the dissolution of government is almost too horrible to contemplate, and must be approached with the utmost circumspection. As long as the courts are operating, free and fair elections are proceeding, and the ordinary processes of government hold out the prospect that whatever momentary inconveniences or dislocations the people experience can be corrected, then they do not represent a long train of abuses and usurpations and should be tolerated. But we cannot remind ourselves too often of the oft-repeated refrain of the Founders: Rights and liberties are best secured when there is a “frequent recurrence to first principles.”

The Current Legal Debate

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that for the first time held unambiguously that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia quoted Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a work well known to the Founders. Blackstone referred to “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” which necessarily entailed “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.” Throughout his opinion, Justice Scalia rightly insisted that the Second Amendment recognized rights that preexisted the Constitution. But Justice Scalia was wrong to imply that Second Amendment rights were codified from the common law—they were, in fact, “natural rights,” deriving their status from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

In his Heller dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens boldly asserted that “there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” In a perverse way, Justice Stevens was correct for the same reason Justice Scalia was wrong: What the Framers did was to recognize the natural right of self-defense. Like the right to revolution, the right to self-defense or self-preservation can never be ceded to government. In the words of James Wilson—a signer of the Declaration, a member of the Constitutional Convention, and an early justice of the Supreme Court—“the great natural law of self-preservation . . . cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution.”

Justice Stevens, however, concluded that because there is no clause in the Constitution explicitly recognizing the common law right of self-defense, it is not a constitutional right and therefore cannot authorize individual possession of weapons. What Justice Stevens apparently doesn’t realize is that the Constitution as a whole is a recognition of the “the great natural law of self-preservation,” both for the people and for individuals. Whenever government is unwilling or unable to fulfill the ends for which it exists—the safety and happiness of the people—the right of action devolves upon the people, whether it is the right of revolution or the individual’s right to defend person and property.

Justice Scalia noted that those who argued for a collective-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment have the impossible task of showing that the rights protected by the Second Amendment are collective rights, whereas every other right protected by the Bill of Rights is an individual right. It is true that the Second Amendment states that “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms. But other amendments refer to the rights of “the people” as well. The Fourth Amendment, for example, guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure.” But there seems to be universal agreement that Fourth Amendment rights belong to individuals.

And what of the First Amendment’s protection of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?” Justice Stevens argues that these rights are collective rights. After all, he avers, “they contemplate collective actions.” It is true, the Justice concedes, that the right to assemble is an individual right, but “its concern is with action engaged in by members of a group, rather than any single individual.” And the right to petition government for a redress of grievances is similarly, he says, “a right that can be exercised by individuals,” even though “it is primarily collective in nature.” Its collective nature, he explains, means that “if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert.” Even though individuals may petition government for redress, it is more “effective” if done in concert with others, even though “concert” is not necessary to the existence or the exercise of the right.

With respect to assembly, Justice Stevens argues, there cannot be an assembly of one. An “assembly” is a collection of individual rights holders who have united for common action or to promote a common cause. But who could argue that the manner in which the assemblage takes place, or the form that it takes, significantly qualifies or limits the possession or exercise of the right? We might as well argue that freedom of speech is a collective right because freedom of speech is most effectively exercised when there are auditors; or that freedom of the press is a collective right because it is most effectively exercised when there are readers. Justice Stevens’ argument is thus fanciful, not to say frivolous.

The Court in Heller did indicate, however, that there could be some reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. “Longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” for example, will continue to meet constitutional muster. Laws that forbid “carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” are also reasonable regulations, as are “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The prohibition on “dangerous and unusual weapons”—including automatic firearms—fall outside Second Amendment guarantees as well.

But the Heller decision is clear that handgun possession for self-defense is absolutely protected by the Second Amendment. Can handguns be carried outside the home as part of “the inherent right of self-defense?” The Court indicated that handguns can be prohibited in “sensitive places,” but not every place outside the home is sensitive. And if carrying weapons in a non-sensitive area is protected by the Second Amendment, can there be restrictions on concealed carrying? These are all questions that will have to be worked out in the future, if not by legislation, then by extensive litigation.

The Supreme Court took a further important step in securing Second Amendment rights in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), ruling that these rights as articulated in Heller were fundamental rights, and thus binding on the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have to remember, however, that both of these cases were decided by narrow, 5-4 majorities, and that new appointments of more progressive-minded justices to the Court could easily bring about a reversal.

For the moment, Second Amendment rights seem safe, but in the long term a political defense will be a more effective strategy. As Abraham Lincoln once remarked, “Whoever moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.” Shaping and informing public sentiments—public opinion—is political work, and thus it is to politics that we must ultimately resort.

* * *

In the current climate of public opinion, Congress will have little appetite for passing an assault gun ban. More likely, it will be satisfied with passing legislation aimed at gun trafficking and tightening background checks. We must remember, however, President Obama’s pledge: “If Congress won’t act then I will.” He has already issued 23 gun-related executive orders, and some of them are rather curious. One of them notes that there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that prevents doctors from asking patients about guns in the home; another directs “the Centers for Disease Control to research the cause and prevention of gun violence.”

The President’s power to act through executive orders is as extensive as it is ill-defined. Congress routinely delegates power to executive branch agencies, and the courts accord great deference to agency rule-making powers, often interpreting ambiguous legislative language or even legislative silence as a delegation of power to the executive. Such delegation provokes fundamental questions concerning the separation of powers and the rule of law. Many have argued that it is the price we have to pay for the modern administrative state—that the separation of powers and the rule of law have been rendered superfluous by the development of this state. Some of the boldest proponents of this view confidently insist that the triumph of the administrative state has propelled us into a post-constitutional era where the Constitution no longer matters.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 gives the President the discretion to ban guns he deems not suitable for sporting purposes. Would the President be bold enough or reckless enough to issue an executive order banning the domestic manufacture and sale of assault rifles? Might he argue that these weapons have no possible civilian use and should be restricted to the military, and that his power as commander-in-chief authorizes him so to act? Or perhaps sometime in the near future he will receive a report from the Centers for Disease Control that gun violence has become a national health epidemic, with a recommendation that he declare a national health emergency and order the confiscation of all assault weapons. Congress could pass legislation to defeat such an executive order; but could a divided Congress muster the votes?—and in any case, the President could resort to his veto power. Individuals would have resort to the courts; but as of yet, we have had no ruling that assault weapons are not one of the exceptions that can be banned or regulated under Heller. We could make the case that assault rifles are useful for self-defense and home defense; but could we make the case that they are essential? Would the courts hold that the government had to demonstrate a compelling interest for a ban on assault rifles, as it almost certainly would have to do if handguns were at issue?

Are these simply wild speculations? Perhaps—probably! But they are part of the duty we have as citizens to engage in a frequent recurrence to first principles. ■

---

Copyright © 2013 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.
I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.

Open Letter to Vice President Joe Biden from former U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Tim Pope

Vice President Joe Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Vice President Biden:

I received your letter from the White House yesterday entitled ‘If not now, when?’ You are shameless, sir. Utterly shameless. This administration thinks nothing of exploiting the horrific deaths of 20 young schoolchildren and 6 adults to further your agenda to de facto repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution. 

Within days of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Nancy Pelosi was demanding an outright ban on all “assault” weapons. Senator Diane Feinstein was right behind her, preparing to introduce a bill that expands the definition of “assault weapon” to encompass more types of firearms than ever before. New York state liberals also jumped on the bandwagon—bill S01422, too, would define assault weapons far more broadly than ever before and instantly make many commonly used hunting weapons illegal. That bill also makes it a crime to possess more than two firearms, period. And New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo has boldly stated his intentions for outright gun confiscation.

I want to firmly express to you my opposition of this illegitimate and unconstitutional agenda of disarmament. Adolf Hitler did the exact same thing to his people in 1934, and then we saw what he did to his people after disarming them. That is the reason why the Second Amendment is in place, and why the framers of our Constitution declared that our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. James Madison, the author of the Bill of rights, asserted in I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789), “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” Madison also enunciated in Federalist Paper #46 that, “the ultimate authority… resides in the people alone.” Alexander Hamilton reaffirmed that statement in The Federalist Papers at 184-8, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

“The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.”

So, I just wanted to articulate to you my extreme disapproval of you following what seem to be your political guides, communist and socialist dictators, who during the 20^th century initiated sweeping gun control measures to disarm their people before initiating their mass murder campaigns. Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chavez took the guns, Pol Pot took the guns, Mussolini took the guns, Lenin took the guns. THEN, THEY HAD THEIR WAY WITH THEM.

By the way, sir, if you think that anyone is going to be dutifully falling in line to obey your gun control edicts, let's first ask how many murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers or gang bangers are going to turn in their firearms? The answer is much like your credibility: Zero.

We saw how well the alcohol prohibition worked. We see how well the drug prohibition has worked. And now you expect different results with your gun prohibition? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY GUN LAWS, but we all know that. And neither will we law-abiding, gun-owning American citizens obey your illegitimate gun laws. We will instead keep them to defend against the murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers and gang bangers that you seem so intent on empowering against us.

They are the reason Senator Dianne Feinstein acquired a concealed carry permit in the state of California, a city where it is nearly impossible to get one; and the reason you employ a number of armed body guards at your disposal, correct? They are the reason I’m armed—to defend myself and my family. No one is assigned to protect me, sir, and no taxpayer dollars are spent to keep me and my family safe from would-be attackers who mean to do us harm. I don’t need to address the hypocrisy of government officials arming themselves to the teeth while working to disarm their constituents. U.S. Marine Corporal Joshua Boston already articulated that observation with zeal. We absolutely know and understand the deceitfulness, duplicity and gaslighting of those who enjoy armed guards at their disposal, telling us in contradiction that we don't deserve even the basic defense for our life, liberty and property.

For example, as you know, President Obama just signed a bill affording him Secret Service protection for life, while attempting to go around Congress to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms through executive action. You confirmed that in your letter with, “Some of them [ideas] will require action from Congress; the President is acting on others immediately.” It flies in the face of common sense; goes against common law and organic law, against God's law and the law of the universe; against the Magna Carta and the Constitution, to disarm the good guys thereby empowering the bad guys. In the meantime, Obama has been arming, training and funding criminal terrorist organizations like the Sinaloa drug cartel, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other violent jihadist extremist groups, as well as running guns to al-Qaeda in Syria, which we all know the Benghazi scandal was a botched cover-up operation for.

According to the FBI, mass shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 annual homicides in the United States. Also, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program reports that when considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.

As the graph above highlights, according to the latest figures obtained by the FBI, violent crime offenses in the United States have been falling since 2007. The five year trend clearly shows that, despite there being an ongoing national debate about gun violence in America, violent crime itself is actually becoming less of a problem.

The graph below from the Department of Justice also highlights the fact that over the last 40 years, the amount of guns in America per 1,000 people has increased, whereas serious violent crimes have decreased.

In addition, the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs in the United States routinely outpaces the number of homicides committed using a rifle. Moreover, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by rifles. Also, 197,000 unnatural deaths from infections contracted in American hospitals are reported every year. Should U.S. lawmakers introduce urgent legislation to outlaw hammers, baseball bats, hands, fists, and hospitals?

The point is that our violent crime rate in the U.S. is dropping significantly, sir, and our firearms sales have been growing exponentially in the wake of the Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT shootings, bolstered by the massive media propaganda campaigns, and the government’s shameful politicization of the deaths of children. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime. The FBI has come to this conclusion, as well as scores of other crime analysis organizations. FBI statistics decisively establish that even when gun ownership rises, there is no proof that gun crimes rise.

That's why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in Europe per capita, because everyone by law is required to be armed. That is the reason Switzerland hasn't been invaded in over 300 years. No one would dare invade them, because any invasion force knows — much like Emperor Yamamoto knew he couldn't invade the U.S. — that they wouldn't advance more than 100 yards inland before being defeated. The Swiss have the lowest crime rate in Europe, not because they defenselessly cower in fear, but because the whole country is armed and trained to kill. The fundamentals of our Constitution, as you know, we're not written in a vacuum. They derived from the Swiss, who borrowed the ideas from the Dutch.

Also worth noting, still not one single shred of evidence of the Sandy Hook shooting has been presented by law enforcement or investigators, confirming that it happened the way the official story said it did, let alone that it even happened at all. However, that hasn’t stopped social engineering politicians and bureaucrats exploiting it for political expediency. And every thinking individual who has witnessed this charade play out, especially considering the numerous discrepancies of initial reports, knows that the bill was written long before Sandy Hook and even Columbine.

Author William S. Burroughs concluded in 1991 that, “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” History has shown this to be true over and over, that when only police and military have guns, it’s an authoritarian police state. Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-UT), read into the congressional record on May 16, 1968 “[We] should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word.”

“They always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.”

Considering that, let’s use analyze the logic of the gun control lobby for a moment: a handful of mentally unstable madmen on mind-altering psychotropic drugs committed mass shootings, so we have to then confiscate the guns of all law-abiding citizens. If that argument has any merit, then the same argument could be used if a handful of government officials misuse taxpayer dollars and sink our country into insurmountable debt. We should then of course de-fund all government agencies, because obviously none of them can be trusted to manage our money responsibly.

Your logic defies all conscious and intellectual reasoning, and Ayn Rand truthfully explained in her book, ‘Atlas Shrugged’, that “Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind.”

And why has the important debate regarding the inescapable correlation between psychiatric medications — namely Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — and violent acts of homicide being covered up by the Obama administration and the major media? The latest cover-up was journalist Lawrence Hunter’s explosive January 14th op-ed article in Forbes.com, ‘Psychiatric Drugs, Not A Lack Of Gun Control, Are The Common Denominator In Murderous Violence’, which was swiftly taken down. Is it because the multi-national petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries are major financial contributors of this administration and ObamaCare?

Continuing on, according to the World Health Organization, the latest homicide/murder statistics for the world confirm that the United States has only 4.2 murders per 100,000 citizens. We are 97^th on the list of murders per capita, with every country greater than us being one with a 100% gun ban nationwide.

Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases in the U.S. that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an 8% decrease in murder and a 9% decrease in robbery. Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43% to a 35-year low. At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called “assault weapons,” would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.

In other actuaries, violent crime is down 49% nationwide. Whereas gun ownership has risen to an all-time high, violent crime, in stark contrast, has fallen to a 35-year low. Murder in general has fallen 49% to a 45-year low in the U.S.

One distinct advantage we have to decide whether or not reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban would be effective, is the benefit of empirical evidence. Part of the law enabling the AWB also required the Department of Justice to look at the effect of the ban on crime before and after the decade that it was in place. The study, ‘Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994–96’ by Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper, failed to show a significant impact on “assault weapon” use or support the allegation that large capacity magazines lead to more murders.

Mass murders are tragic and, fortunately, rare. There is no data to support the notion that reinstating an AWB will prevent further tragedies. In fact, two of the largest mass murders in U.S. history, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon, and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing did not even involve firearms.

A very telling example of how gun control really works is to take a cursory look at the cities that have established the most expansive “gun-free zones” throughout the world. Great Britain, Mexico and Australia, all with total gun bans, are descending into chaos. U.S. cities including New York and Las Angeles, also with total citywide gun bans, have dizzying violent crime numbers. The murder capital of the world, the “deadliest global city” according to NBC, however, is Chicago. The Windy City, with a citywide gun ban, has the highest murder rate of any alpha world city, even beating out the notoriously hazardous Juárez, Mexico. We know that you are aware of these facts.

Let us also not forget to mention the ineffectiveness of gun control to curb gun violence in the District of Columbia. Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, President Black Police Caucus, Special Assistant to Washington, D.C. Police Chief, said candidly, “Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It’s quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than to dial 911 if you’re being robbed.”

Why do you think that ammunition is sold out all over the country and on back order with just about every arms manufacturer, because millions and millions of Americans have all-of-a-sudden taken up Elk hunting? No, it's because we know there is something terrible being planned in Washington. Why else did multiple domestic federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Weather Service, purchase 1.6 billion rounds of various caliber sniper rounds and hollow point, which are banned on the battlefield by the Geneva convention?

On August 17, 2012, following the initial record federal ammo purchases, Major General Jerry Curry, U.S. Army (retired), asked the question, “Who does the government intend to shoot?” In his article, he articulated, “The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.”

Thank you for expediting our awakening to the tyranny of this administration, sir. We have been onto you for a long time. We have also been onto Senator Dianne Feinstein ever since she openly declared in 1992 that she wanted “Mr. and Mrs. America to turn ‘em all in.” May I remind you that Mr. and Mrs. America are me and my family, my friends, my fellow veterans, law enforcement officers and law-abiding American citizens. Mr. and Mrs. America are not the murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers and gang bangers.

“Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

Noah Webster articulated in his ‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’ (1787) that “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” And Tench Coxe wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette on Feb. 20, 1788, “The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”

You will never get our guns. You will never annex our freedom. You will never capture our Liberty. You will never succeed at infringing upon our Second Amendment right, a right which John Adams declared “antecedent to all earthly governments; a right that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; a right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Samuel Adams also declared prophetically, “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

To attempt to infringe, repeal or restrain our God-given rights would be a declaration of war against We the People, and would therefore constitute an act of treason. As you know, treason is a crime prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. The United States Code 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states, “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies… is guilty of treason.” Foreign governments are now openly calling for the disarmament of the American people by our government. The communist Chinese government, Mexican President Felipe Calderón (who’s country is descending into bedlam, because only the drug cartels and corrupt government are allowed to be armed), and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are all calling for us to be disarmed. Foreign media, including Russian RT Moscow, British-based Reuters, Britain’s Piers Morgan, and Indian-born Fareed Zakaria, are also calling for the president to disarm us outside of the Rule of Law.

Why, sir, are you treasonously adhering to our enemies"?
 
It is for that fundamental reason that We the People engage our unalienable Second Amendment, because we all know that it’s not about hunting or target practice. It’s about establishing the balance of power. Thomas Jefferson, drafter of the Declaration of Independence, said it best, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Jefferson also proclaimed, “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Paine warned, “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” And Suzanna Gratia Hupp, survivor of the 1991 Luby’s massacre, confirmed Jefferson’s and Paine’s admonitions while testifying before Congress, “The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I’m not going to make very many friends saying this, but it’s about our right, all of our right to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.”

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting at all. In the era of the framing of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, if you didn’t hunt or fish, you didn’t eat. The Second Amendment has everything to do with repelling an oppressive government, initially in the form of the ruthless King George III and the battle-hardened Hessian troops he sent from Hesse, Germany. George Washington took on over 1,000 of them at Trenton. So, we’re getting really sick and tired of all the so-called “experts” trying to convince the American people that the only one of our rights that was declared by our founders to be “necessary to the security of a free State,” is about hunting. The argument that “Americans don’t need 30 rounds to kill a deer” hasn’t the slightest relevance to keeping and bearing arms, because deer haven’t historically tried to kill us.

The masses are growing ever aware of the true nature and intent of gun control. We are also aware that Congress and the vast majority of our elected officials are criminal insider-trading authoritarians. We know, according to financial disclosures, that Senator Dianne Feinstein used the illegal marriage of corporate and state power to expand her personal wealth one-hundredfold while in office. We also know that Senator Feinstein had to dishonorably walk away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after facing the scrutiny that she used her authority to aid in awarding her husband, Richard C. Blum, lucrative war-profiteering contracts.

You, and the rest of our elected officials, including our insider-trading president, need to understand and acknowledge that We the People will not be disarmed; not without a fight. We will never comply with any of your illegitimate “laws” that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void from inception.” — Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void from inception.”

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights is clear: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The Second Amendment serves as a powerful symbol for liberty and individual sovereignty. The existence of the Second Amendment means the American citizen “still has the fundamental marks of political sovereignty, namely, firearms. His firearms testify to the fact that the central government does not yet feel sufficiently confident to confiscate his firearms in the name of the central government’s exclusive monopoly of violence. His firearms testify to the fact that he is still a citizen, and that he still possesses rights that politicians and bureaucrats cannot legally overturn.” — Gary North, American economic historian and publisher, December 22, 2013

Alexander Hamilton affirmed the inherent right of every American to keep and bear arms, and the right of revolution, in the Federalist, No. 28, 178-79: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”

The orthodox view of the meaning of the Second Amendment was articulated by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution. In his view the meaning of the Amendment was clear: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.”

Case law is the set of existing rulings which have made new interpretations of law and, therefore, can be cited as precedent. Let’s take a look at four poignant cases decided by the United States Supreme Court:

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” — Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

“For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” — Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)

“‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” — Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys... to keep and bear arms of every description... shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.”

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” — People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” — State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” — Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

In common law legal systems, Mr. Vice President, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts. The point of highlighting case law is that it is binding precedent, and has already been decided by the highest judicial authority in the land.

You must acknowledge, first and foremost, that WE ARE AMERICANS. We are not the 80 million disarmed Chinese peasants who respectfully bowed before being slaughtered upon Mao’s “ant hill”. We are not the 62 million Russian and Ukrainian farmers who cowered in their basements after being disarmed, awaiting mass murder in Stalin’s Soviet gulag archipelago extermination campaign. We are not the 21 million disarmed German Jews and political dissidents who politely curtsied and removed their hats to be shot in the head and kicked into a ditch and lined-up to fill gas chambers during Hitler’s Nazi genocide state. We are not the 1.5 million Cambodian refugees who were disarmed by Pol Pot in order to fill the mass graves of his “killing fields” under his agrarian socialism. We are not the innumerable Native Americans who submitted to registering their firearms and then being disarmed, disgraced, and “cleansed” by the U.S. government and European colonists. “Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and to make prey of its subjects." — Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., Constitutional Lawyer

Men with guns come to take our guns.

Let’s take a cursory look at what the tyrants of recent history had to say about gun control:

Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” — from a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 

Nazi Law: “Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” — Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons, 1938

Chairman Mao Zedong: “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” — from The Little Red Book, 1964

Joseph Stalin: “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

Vladimir Lenin: “One man with a gun can control one hundred without one.”

Benito Mussolini: “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.” — from an address to the Italian Senate, 1931

Let’s run a hypothetical scenario. If 99% of Americans submit to this tyranny, and only 1% of us resist you — which is all that it took to win our independence from the despotism of the British crown — that leaves 1.5 million red-blooded, freedom-loving American citizens who would gladly die in the defense of our Constitutional Republic; 1.5 million people who have already dedicated, as I have, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor in the defense of Liberty against a tyrannical government. And we know that it will be many, many more than 1% who resist. In the words of Senator Barry Goldwater, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

I want to know exactly who you expect is going to confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns of 100 million law-abiding citizens. The police? The military? How many of them are you willing to sacrifice to take our guns? The obvious irony to all: MEN WITH GUNS COME TO TAKE OUR GUNS?

Well, I can assure you that there are countless police departments and military sleeper units that have already declared to never obey any illegitimate federal gun registration or confiscation orders that come down. I have personally spoken to many active duty and reserve military and law enforcement personnel who have made the decision to honor the Oath they swore to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. They know what’s at stake. They know they could lose their lives, but they are more than willing to die for honor, for commitment, for country. The gears of your machine would then grind to a halt, and I can assure you that many more will wake up and join the ranks of resistance once they are forced into a position of obeying illegal orders, and they will be very angry at whoever gave them those orders. “What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. LET THEM TAKE ARMS.” — Thomas Jefferson to James Madison in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al, Dec. 20, 1787

Remember this:  Following illegal orders was not excused for the Nazi commanders who were tried and convicted at the Nuremberg military tribunals.

Why, sir, are you committed to forcing the police and military to make a decision to either follow an illegal order, thereby breaking their sworn constitutional Oath, or facing the bureaucracy of a corrupt system erected to make our fighting men and women engage in dishonest and unlawful activity? Who, then, would you bring in, U.N. troops, as Henry Kissinger treacherously called for at the Bilderberg meeting in Evian, France, on May 21, 1991?

Also, why are you attempting to disarm the largest law-abiding armed resistance force in the United States? Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy famously addressed the world’s largest army when he proclaimed that, “You cannot invade mainland America, because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” To take those rifles would effectively strip our country of its force of arms to defend against enemy invasion of our mainland. To bar our use of arms would open our country up to an attack from any number of nations who have sought our destruction.

We’re onto you. We know the script and we're not going to acquiesce to you and your foreign and domestic collaborators. Your campaign of fear will fail. We are not afraid. We are the last best hope of earth — the last bastion of Liberty worldwide — and our right to keep and bear arms is the final balance of power, to keep you and the rest of our rogue government in check.

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples' liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

Rights are not gifts from government. Neither does the Bill of rights give us our rights. It recognizes them, points them out, highlights them, and guarantees them from being infringed. Our rights are inherent and unalienable. If you, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Dianne Feinstein, and the rest of the oath-breakers in government have a problem with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then you should all be removed from office and deported to whatever country will give you asylum. And you will be if you pursue our disarmament or any other rights infringement. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples' liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” — George Washington 

In contrast to the views of wise men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the controlled complicit media deifies and elevates the collectivist views of social engineers like Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Alan Dershowitz, and organizations like the U.N. and the U.S. State Department. Let’s take a look at what they are saying:

“Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time... The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced... The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal. Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” — Sarah Brady, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

During a March 30th meeting last year between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)… We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” This quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley. “What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media,” wrote Jeff Knox, “Even the folks at the Brady bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the president. There is nothing on their website discussing or even mentioning Obama’s chat with Jim and Sarah.”

Barack Obama told rural voters in a Midwestern Pennsylvania town in 2008, “...they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” And Attorney General Eric Holder said in a C-SPAN press conference on January 30, 1995, “We need to really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Bill Clinton gave a speech at the 1995 United Nations 50th anniversary, calling for the U.N. to continue to stem the proliferation of weapons. He stressed that member states must “strengthen U.N. peacekeeping to help deter, contain, and end violent conflict.”

Chicago Mayor Rham Emanuel said in 2009, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Opportunities like Sandy Hook?

The United Nations has perhaps declared the most draconian reason for the disarmament of nation states. This is an excerpt from an official U.N. report in July, 2001, “Civilian ownership of any firearm in the U.S. threatens the legitimate power monopoly of the state.”

Also disturbing in its transparency is the United Nations Joint Services Training Combat Arms Survey for military personnel, in which question #46 asks: The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority. Consider the following statement: “I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”
[SD D A SA NO]

Let us also highlight the glaring fact that the famous “Knotted Gun” sculpture, which stands in front of the United Nations building in New York City, is a .357 Magnum revolver tied in knot. The distinction is that it is not a weapon of war, but a civilian firearm used for personal defense of life, liberty, and property.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, had this to say about the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, “The agreement is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” 

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, had this to say about the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, “The agreement is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

U.S. State Department 1961 memorandum 7277, ‘Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World’, spells out a plan to create a “United Nations Peace Force” that would “enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.” The document makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, “for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and the U.N. “peacekeeping” force itself, which would require “agreed manpower.” The memorandum also predicts, “The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.”

Freedom From War further declares that in the future, law enforcement are not going to be allowed to be armed either. All that will be left is a federalized brigade of troops and a local SWAT team under them. In all the current national emergency agreements, the SWAT teams and emergency teams are already federalized, and are standing by at the local DHS Threat Fusion Centers. This is corroborated in the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) document, ‘Implications of States’ Views on an Arms Trade Treaty’. Graphics in this UNIDIR document show that when they are finished disarming the police, a gradual build-down will commence, leaving only NATO as the world army.

The bottom line is that government was the greatest cause of unnatural death worldwide in the 20^th century. Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, spent his career assembling data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. His exhaustive research has confirmed that between 1900-1999, governments murdered 262 million of their own citizens and those under their control in the following four categories:

Genocide: The killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language).

Politicide: The murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes.

Mass Murder: The indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government.

Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), a group dedicated to the preservation of gun rights in the United States, have also compiled a chart (at left) in 2002, detailing government-sponsored genocide programs after passing sweeping gun control measures.

The recorded history of government-sponsored terror explains much about what the true agenda of control really is. Here are a few of the most revealing examples of state-sponsored false flag terror perpetrated for the implementation of control over civilian populations:

Operation Gladio and the NATO Option: The declassified playbooks of false flag terror that were used by governments and private mercenary organizations to disarm the civilian populations in Europe, Italy, England, Australia, Mexico, and New Zealand. The attacks included “right-wing terrorist attack” shootings perpetrated by paramilitary organizations that were sponsored by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. 

Operation Northwoods: The declassified Pentagon-green-lighted proposal unanimously approved by the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, that describes how to carry out terrorist attacks by shooting American citizens and school children, and blaming it on political enemies.

Project Megiddo, the MIAC report, and the DHS Rightwing Extremism memorandum: The federal training documents warning of coming attacks by conservatives, libertarians, gun owners and “religious extremists”, a self-fulfilling prophesy for when more government-sponsored acts of terror are perpetrated.

PNAC: The Project for a New American Century’s position paper, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’, which was released in September of 2000, advocated the necessity for a “catalyzing Pearl Harbor-like incident” to mobilize our country into war with Israel's enemies. 

Operation Fast & Furious: According to subpoenaed federal court memos, this was the covert gun-running operation that this current administration was caught engaging in, shipping tens of thousands of guns, hand grenades and rocket launchers to the Sinaloa drug cartel and Hezbollah in Mexico, to destabilize the country and blame the ensuing violence on our Second Amendment. 

Statesman, orator and political theorist Edmund Burke remarked that, “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it,” and those of us who have studied history know that when the government comes to take our guns, that is when we need them the most. Gun control is a recipe for enslavement and — historically speaking — for subsequent mass murder. We understand that for thousands of years, when authoritarian systems would take over civilizations, such as Alexander the Great's empire, the Roman empire, and the Byzantines after them, they would always assess who the upper middle class was and wipe them out. Why? Because, the upper middle class posed the greatest resistance to tyranny. We know that the true agenda of gun control is to purge American gun owners, because you're getting ready to drop the hammer and collectivize the general population by bankrupting us. That is for another letter. As our country goes into the engineered depression, though, we know that you don't want people to be able to protect themselves during the societal collapse. You want us to instead turn to big daddy government to protect us. That isn’t going to happen.

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”

We have read the Emergency Centers Establishment Act, the Civilian Inmate Labor Program, REX84, the Model States Health Emergency Powers Act, the NDAA, and the Army’s Civil Disturbance Operations manual, all of which confirm the establishment and activation of hundreds of detention camps on military bases to house American political prisoners outside of law.

We know why you're panicking and trying to get this done now, because you see the gun culture exploding all over the country, and our citizens arming to the teeth in preparation for defense. Gun show organizers are reporting average attendance records being broken all over the country, the latest in California drawing over 10,000 people. It’s not because we’re all planning a hunting trip. Multiple national polls of gun and ammunition buyers state unequivocally that it’s because they distrust the government. Your job to disarm the American people is getting more and more difficult with each passing day, isn’t it?

As well, we know that these policies aren't confined to the United States alone, that the same policies are being put in place in Australia, Africa, Asia, Western and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and other areas of North America like Mexico and Canada. We know that it is the exact same program worldwide. The very same thing has been done in country after country after country. First they register, then they confiscate. “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” — Janet Reno, former United States Attorney General

However, the last time an enemy of our nation attempted to confiscate our guns, was the match that ignited America’s War for Independence. That’s right, ATTEMPTED GUN CONFISCATION was the catalyst, and you know how it ended. It did not go well at all for the usurpers. 

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stated, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Ruling out the impossible, the probable assignment of this administration and its supporters must be to drive the American people to civil war.

I believe you are going to overplay your hand.

Tyrannical government can only push citizens around through intimidation. The moment the governmental regime begins to use physical force and violence against the citizenry, it’s over for you. When the public realizes that it can and will fight back, the regime utterly collapses.

This is the dilemma facing this administration, its controllers and enforcers in 2013. How far can you push the American people before the people push back? If the gun-grabbers push too hard and too fast, a full-blown nationwide insurrection is at risk of igniting.

Are you really prepared to pull the trigger to start a civil war and risk losing all control?

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said, “We have an administration that has said ‘don’t let a good crisis go to waste’ and you wonder if this was actually a manufactured crisis.” And Blogger Dean Weingarten wrote, “The only purpose of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as the legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when the government feels the necessity to disarm its citizens in order to further its control… If the American people learn that the motivations for all of this was to make a case to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights or to make a case to further the (Justice) department’s ability to further regulate gun rights within the United States, that would make them very angry… Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people's distrust.”

“Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people's distrust.”

In closing, our Bill of Rights is under attack systematically, across the board. A reminder of the unanimous Declaration of Independence our country was founded upon, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, which was the last resort for the colonists whose rights were also under attack: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Also, a reminder of the Oath of Office you swore upon entering the U.S. Senate, because you seem to have forgotten it: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” The Oath I swore is much the same as yours, but I, in contrast, have honor, and I took it seriously and meant what I said. 

The Dick Act of 1902, also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill, House Resolution 1165.4 of June 28, 1902, invalidates all so-called gun control laws. This act has never been repealed, and it cannot be repealed. To do so would violate the Bill of Attainders, and ex-pro-facto laws would be yet another gross violation of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This law is in full force, full effect, and has been since 1902. It guarantees our right to any type of arm that we want. It doesn’t say “weapons”; it doesn’t say “firearms”. It specifically says “ARMS.”

This is not a game, Mr. Vice President. This is the line in the sand. It is for all the marbles. We see you for who you really are and we are righteously angry. You’re stirring up a hornet's nest, and as George Mason decried, “To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” James Burgh expounded in his work, ‘Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses’ (London, 1774-1775), that “No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.”

We the People will not be disarmed or enslaved, nor will we allow you to repeat history.

It goes without saying that everything I have written in this letter is protected by my unalienable First Amendment right, guaranteeing my freedom of speech: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Until, of course, you also try to take that away.

The pen truly is mightier than the sword, and considering that the First Amendment is the indelible power of the pen, we would then as a citizenry be forced to defer to the power of the sword if anyone approaches that jewel. As Patrick Henry affirmed, “Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Perhaps that is why you want our Second Amendment, after all. And that is precisely why we will never ever give it up while we still draw breath. We know it’s not about protecting the children. We know it’s about overthrowing our nation, which Karl Marx praised in his Communist Manifesto, “In order to overthrow a nation, its people must first be disarmed.” 

“In order to overthrow a nation, its people must first be disarmed.”

Aristotle warned, “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.” The mask is off. We see you for who you really are, and may God have mercy upon you if you go through with this administration’s agenda of civilian disarmament. You are on notice, sir.

We know.

Sincerely,

Tim Pope
Sergeant, U.S.M.C.
Expert Marksman
Oath Keeper
Polk County, FL

I sent a copy of this letter to my elected representatives:
Barack Obama, President
Eric Holder, United States Attorney General
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
Rick Scott, Governor (R-FL)
Jennifer Carroll, Lieutenant Governor (R-FL)
Rep. Kelli Stargel, District 64 (R-FL)
Rep. John Wood, District 41 (R-FL)
Pam Bondi, Attorney General of Florida (R-FL)
Grady Judd, Sheriff, Polk County, FL

I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth. I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors. Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves. Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom, and may God bless each and every single one of you.