Page Nine

Every single weapon & tool devised and built, from the lowliest stick and spear to the use of the lowly rock, on up to the laser computer guided whatever blow it all up devices, has been devised and built by what? MAN!
All items take the input of what for them to be used for the purpose for which they were devised? MAN!
None of what has been devised, invented, built by man, can do anything but sit there as an inanimate object.
It's mans increasingly evil nature that turns inanimate objects into weapons. Virtually everything can, has, and will in the future, be used as a weapon to advance the forces of evil.
It's clear that mans inherent evil nature is the problem. In short. MAN is the problem, not his inventions or devices. What are we to do: Ban MAN?
It is the destruction of the moral compass and belief in responsibility that is causing the increase in violence in the world. NOT THE GUNS.

It's all just language manipulation by the commie propagandists. Everyone that has firearms is a murderer that just hasn't acted yet.

Really want to know what Swamp Agency provided the Texas Tranny with the expensive guns, ammo, and "kit". Otherwise "Sal" was an occasional burger flipper with an addicted mother, who was crashing on a mattress on Granny's floor.

Someone found a use for that piece of trash.

This is an easy one: YES to all the above.
Anything not specifically authorized under the Constitution is PROHIBITED. It doesn't mean unless "congress" or other so called elected offfal thinks it's a good idea.
Judges should be "required" to state at the beginning that not only is the violator of the alleged infraction on trial but the very law which was violated is on trial as to its viability. And this as well as basic understanding of our Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civics, should be taught and mandatory for graduation.
Any elected offal found violating his/her oath of office needs firing mui pronto with all benefits eliminated with a fine of all monies accrued while they were in office .

It has, and always will, remain the same;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is simple, in plain English. If you can speak even a modicum of the English language you can understand it. It is not open for personal interpretation or semantic obfuscation. It means exactly what it says, no more, no less. You cannot distort it in any manner you choose. No amount of buts, if's, how's, or why's, will alter its meaning.

I had previously accepted the weapons permit system since it allowed the Authorities to arrest and prosecute any "prohibited person" who was carrying, however since the Authorities generally don't prosecute "prohibited persons" for political reasons, there is no reason for a permit system that only affects law-abiding "normies". The permit system has become only a way to disarm the oponents of the Democrats/Progressives who might be tempted to defend themselves from attack. It has become obvious that armed citizens are no threat to others. The fantasy of violence and bloodshed is, however, a characteristic of the Democratic urban strongholds.

Still proudly walking around safe and sound with ZERO jabs in me.

Went to my doctor today for a 6 month BP check. He could not believe someone like myself that works in EMS has not and will not get jabbed. He asked why? I told him he would not like my answer but he wanted to hear it. I told him I have lost all trust in the medical community when they decided to play politics and become policy makers and shills for big pharma instead of healers. I reminded him that no jab you can get right now is an apporved or a licensed vaccine, just a big lab experiment I wsnt no part of. He could not disagree with my points, but still insisted since he got it I should get it.

They have been pushing the myth that guns rather than the people are the cause of all the violence in the Democratic cities. They couldn't accept such posters.

I suspect that we are looking at a nation-wide implementation of Compton, California. Since, "forever", Compton has been ~100% Black (African American) with about 100 murders per year. The Hispanic population (and their gangs) moved in and by targeting the Black gang-bangers, encouraged that part of the population to relocate. Compton is now ~70% Hispanic and with ittle violent crime, unless you cross the new gangs.

I don't think that gun "rights" was ever a question there. "Gun Control" and firearms regulation seems to focus on the extra-urban White population that might want to defend themselves, their family, or their neighbors and thus interferre with the planned relocation of the ghetto population.

Similarly, the push for changing suburban zoning to allow "affordable", multi-family (ghetto ready) housing in the suburbs is in support of the "Great Relocation".

I am pretty sure that viewing "Gun Control", "Open Borders", and rezoning in the suburbs in isolation is a mistake. The urban cores are now mostly a violent burden. The surge in urban violence serves to drive out the last of the "normies" and the surviving businesses. The new population is the likely source of profit and prosperity for the property owners and for the Corruptocrats. It's all part of the plan.

From my understanding of our Constitution this is a blatant violation of the Constitution. One of the presidents primary responsibilities, (if you can call comrade slo jo that) is to ensure the laws enacted by congress are enforced. Another responsibility is to ensure each state, and the country as a whole, protection from, invasion. Not only is this an invasion by it's very definitions it's a violation of immigration laws as they now stand.
He cannot, by executive order, simply bypass congressionally passed laws. If it was legal every president would simply make up the rule they liked as they go.
Slo jo needs to be impeached on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. And we have zero members of congress with the balls to initiate any even remote attempt to right this clown show.
This govt. has absolutely zero credibility. Flic the Bic!

The fuze is lit and halfway to the powder keg. Just a matter of time now. So many commies, so few lamp posts.

I think that you are missing the point.

In Compton (California), the Hispanics, with their gangs, moved into a virtually 100% Black town, and drove the Black gang bangers out so that Compton is now majority Hispanic with virtually no "violent" crime. If the Black gang bangers are afraid of the Whites in the "surrouind", then they will not leave their ghetto and the "investors" in property and bribes will not be able to collect their profit. Disarming the White "normies" and making them afraid to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their neighbors is essential to "profit".

Pay attention to the game.

If you’re trying to convince me that giving a $15-an-hour clerk at a sporting-goods store another form to fill out is all that stands between us and anarchy, then I trust you’ll forgive me for declining to take you seriously.

I have had more than enough of this commie march towards oblivion, when it comes right down to it, of the human race, all but the elites that will be running the worldwide circus.
Once they get their way of population reduction there will be no one left to be subservient to they wishes, they will implode with the various "Regional" states warring amongst themselves

We are now living in 1930's Germany. With their recent attempt to turn the military in it's entirety into another Hitlers SS corps.

HR 127 - reply with one word....NO....
They do not care about the Constitution, they do not care about rule of law, they lust for power for powers sake, and from now forward they will do absolutely anything to maintain it.
Time to fight back like you mean it. Do not obey, do not co-operate, do not comply with any fraudulent gov or any of its agencies.

When the governed become ungovernable – Let Them Herd Cats…….

You are endowed with God given rights, let none take them from you. You do not need permission, you have those rights by your very humanity.
Long Live Our Republic

One wonders if anyone has ever tried to estimate just how many American Citizens would obey these dictates. States have tried to order involuntary "turn in"s" and have been laughed at.
That said one could readily see that person by person who previously had legally bought a gun and gone through the ATF checks being pressured to buy insurance and the "gigantic" penalties mentioned in her bill being assessed against him if they failed to comply. One could either comply or be forced into bankruptcy. Where does it end?

Hi Alan,
We haven't heard from you in awhile and are becoming concerned.
Hope you're well!!
Best Regards!

It's my view and mine alone, that whatever happens in the outcome of this total election fiasco, I answer to a Higher Power, That of Gods Word.
By this present gummints continual disregard or our written Constitution, it has labeled itself as an Illegitimate gummint. Thereby delegitimizing ANY of its policies, laws, and regulations.
If it should come to this, and I suspect it very likely could, when the powers that be attempt to confiscate my arms, whatever they may be, or any of my property.... How many of them are willing to forfeit their lives for their paltry paycheck in the enforcement of unjust and immoral laws......

Per #18. Add ASU's Cronkite School of "Journalism" Blaze Radio to the list: Their firing of Station Manager Rae'Lee Klein for reporting truth. I'm glad to see she is fighting back.

I have found over the years, most every time you vote yes on any gov mandated legislation is always a vote for more reg, gov control over your basic freedoms. Less for you, more for them.

http://www.gielow.org/Writings/Natural_Born_Citizen.htm

Natural Born Citizen
Definition given on the floor of Congress, Representative John Bingham, father of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Reference - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.”

Chief Justice Marshall’s dissent in the Venus case of 1814 had a quote from Vattel on the subject:

“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."’

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/85070/the-venus-rae-master/

The unanimous opinion in Minor v Happersett of 1875 written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite defined natural born citizen as follows:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/88998/minor-v-happersett/?q=minor+v+happersett

In US v Wong Kim Ark of 1898 written by Associate Justice Horace Gray, Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent had this to say:

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency,...”

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/94842/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark/?q=us+v+wong+kim+ark&type=o&order_by=score+desc&stat_Precedential=on

In Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said:“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth." - "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905))

In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word "jurisdiction" under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean "the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them."

Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the Amendment’s goal to "make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US," and if "the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen."

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." - Sen. Trumbell

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;”

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/88661/slaughter-house-cases/

“From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, by inheritance, be∣longs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmit∣ted it to their offspring.”

A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
PRINTED IN THE YEAR MDCCLXXXIX. by David Ramsey, 1745 - 1815

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N17114.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

A contemporary Supreme Court citation of Vattel citing his expertise, his current applicability, and his credibility with the founders.
5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt,  __ U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019).
“According to the founding era’s foremost expert on the law of nations, “[i]t does not … belong to any foreign power to take cognizance of the administration of [another] sovereign, to set himself up for a judge of his conduct, and to oblige him to alter it.” 2 E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations § 55, p. 155 (J. Chitty ed. 1883).”

Finally, my two cents. http://www.gielow.org/Writings/Natural_Born_Citizen.htm

This gov has and continues to tread down the tyranny path of past dictators and monarchs.It has ignored our Constitution for so many years now it isn't even recognizable anymore. It is not that difficult to follow the outline of what was laid down by the founders in our Constitution.
When special interest groups continue voicing they desire for gov to do this or that, how difficult is it o simply say - NO! Thereby keeping gov in check and ensuring your continued support from legitimate citizens that are morally responsible and accountable for their actions. This gov has gone so far off the trolly I consider them illegitimate and will not abide by any of the edicts, regulations, or so called "laws" dictated from their evil mouths. I only obey laws enacted that abide by the parameters of what is allowed under the Constitution. When wondering if a law, regulation, bureaucratic agency is allowed or not, simply ask yourself, "What Does The Constitution Say".

I saw your article with 8 rights violations of Lautenberg Amendment. I fall under all these with a fakse acusation mcdv, cpl days in jail, in 1991. Was never told of lifetime ban until failed dros nics check in 11/2017. Felons can reduce their crime to get their rights back but falsely accused misdemeanors cant? How is any of thus constitutional?

Alan, you are a very knowledgeable man! Thank you for sharing your much researched facts on what a nbC is. You also have a wonderful sense of humor that makes your serious writing so delightful to read and digest!

For anyone who has read or paid any attention at all to our Constitution, they should know this easily. Same reason why Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio are not eligible.
But under the thinking of the demoncrats and the left, what does it matter. Since they don't and won't follow the Constitution for any reason other than to fit their distorted agenda. And just venturing a guess here, but I'd say about 70% of republicans follow the same suit..

Bidens/Demoncrap Gun Control Bill HR 5717 = 34,416 words of mostly gobbledegook incoherent gibberish.

Founders Gun Control Bill of 1791 = 28 words of clear, concise, easily understood language.

Choose wisely, it's not that hard!

Missing data:
Abortions 2361/day (source: all.org)

Exactly right on all counts. The biggest issue I can see is what you stated: There is no punishment!
As far as I can tell, from my reading of the Big C and Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Only laws allowed under the parameters of enumerated powers listed in the Constitution are valid, all others are null and void. Only Congress can make law, not any un-Constitutional agency. Not the Supreme Court.
As far as I can ascertain there is no provision under the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution that allows for laws regulating firearms. Shall not be infringed - leading to no consequences for the infringement violation = where we are today.

Until we "man up" and ensure our rights under the Declaration and Constitution are enforced, we will continue to lose them and have them otherwise trampled upon. Each and every one of us has the obligation under our system to ensure this remains the norm simply by being engaged. Once we refrain from being engaged we allow those who would trample upon those rights to continue down this path. The 2nd Amendment was designed as the ultimate stopgap.

The founders knew that our Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, or rule of ourselves by ourselves, was the only type government that had not ever been tried throughout history, and it was an experiment.
That experiment required three things - Virtue - which requires Faith - which requires Freedom - which requires Virtue. Not only did they recognize that these three things are required by each and every one of us, they are more importantly, required by the leaders we elect to represent us.
Through our apathy we have forgotten these three basic but most important lessons. So how can we elect people to represent us who do not in turn have these qualities.?
It has become a circular route, or catch 22, that has started us on this present path of globalized socialism/communism, what ever you call it, it is nothing but tyranny by the elites of the oppressed. The 2nd was written in strictly for this very reason. Without it we will have zero chance of any outcome other than slavery. The world will be a much darker place.
Under no circumstances should anyone ever give up their guns legally obtained and possessed by any law-abiding person.
America has become great simply by this great experiment in self rule. America is good not only because of this self rule, it is good because it projects this goodness not to itself, but to the rest of the world.

I remember back in the 1980's, talking with various gun owners, about government overreach and the continuing and evermore egregious infringements they proposed.
(It's funny. I was often reproached for referring to the democrats who proffered those infringements as communists.)
Many of the "lines" that the liberty minded gun owners back then declared would be too far, and if violated believed would popularly demand immediate resolution by force of arms, were crossed several decades ago and now are considered among the myriad existing infringements which the NRA and others blithely demand be enforced and by which they willfully promote that we gun owners must also "abide."
Alan is correct in his assessment that we are too comfortable in our chains. We have become too complacent, timid and downright lazy to deserve the liberty our forefathers purchased for us with blood and treasure.
In my opinion simply owning arms is NOT "supporting" the natural right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Hunting, shooting for sport and even carrying arms for self protection are NOT properly exercising that right as intended. The authors of the Second Amendment were deadly serious about a "well regulated" militia. They knew that only a properly regulated (educated, equipped and practiced) populace could keep the inevitable tyrants who are drawn to the power of office at bay. Part of that regulated practice involves political awareness, education and a willingness to act in the common defense against the power of the state.
Being vigilant to the inherently rapacious nature of the state and demanding compliance to the limitations placed upon it under imminent threat of its dissolution is the only way short of open war.
We are behind the curve.
We have pathetically allowed the state far too much undelegated power attained by usurpation, deception and most importantly on our own part, apathy.
Much like our now unpayable national debt the cost of remedying this ongoing mistake will be much higher a price than it should be.
And possibly more than we can afford.

I am reminded of the following warnings.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
Patrick Henry

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters
Daniel Webster

Alan:
So, knowing what we know, how can “we” law abiding citizens put an end to this invasive government abuse when the propagandists have such a complete and total lock on the “media” at large?
Bob

google athens, TN.
it is a good example of why the 2nd amendment exists!!
or go here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9tUQxsrQGw

We'll get you on the email list. Thanks, Anne!

This very interesting article was sent to me by a friend, and I would like to see more by Mr. Korwin. Unable to sign up for newsletter or send an email, as my paid-for email addresss is not accepted by the media giants that pop up as one's only choices. So may I use this comment space to sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email? Thanks.
Anne Fesler-Butts, citizen of Arizona

"...The Ground Sensor Platoons evolved from a Vietnam War-era remote sensor program whose success during the battle of Khe Sahn showcased how important early notice of enemy movement could be."

Yeah, right. I was there. I can't tell you how many times we (as infantry on patrol) were alerted by radio that "there's a group of VC moving toward you ... they're getting closer ... they're right on top of you!!!"

Only there was nobody there. Once my platoon was hunkered down in a graveyard (it was not always fun and games) at midnight when the call came it like the callers were afraid we were going to be over-run. We went on 100% alert all night, and the party in question never was there. Starlight scopes didn't spot a lizard within 100 yards of us.

This ground sensing radar business is a bunch of unreliable crap. I could cite a dozen instances of false readings, and not ONE SINGLE POSITIVE that resulted in enemy movement within 200 yards of us ... often on moon-lit nights.

If the Viet Nam experience is the standard measurement of technological efficiency, I rate this article a huge ZERO because what looks good on paper is an absolute wash in the field.

That "evolution" in technology had better have taken a HUGE QUANTUM LEAP in reliability, and knock of references to Viet Nam.

I offer a unique take on "background checks". First: Do we have a prohibited-person (P-P) law? Prescinding from whether anything in that law is Constitutional - the Expat provision clearly IS - we HAVE a law. How do we enforce that law? Cops and prosecutors need to know whether a person found in possession of a gun (under suspicious circumstances) is a P-P or not. (Likewise, is he a fugitive, escaped prisoner, convicted of a previous crime, . . . ) How is that supposed to work? Got to have a database. Now, we have to be concerned with the maintenance of that database. Fair enough.

What does the NICS check on the sales floor of the FFL do for us? It's PR for lawful commerce in arms. Like hanging a sign in the window: 'Prohibited-Persons need not apply'. Nothing more. Does the FFL-NICS-check turn-away lawful buyers on false-positive matches? Yes; and, this MUST be remedied! Neither errors nor weaknesses in the government's database may be tolerated for an FFL-industry PR measure.

What of this national delusion that point-of-sale checks will prevent a P-P or minor from obtaining guns? Do we harbor this delusion for alcohol? Tobacco? Don't minors obtain these lawful products via straw-buyers?

Let's consider ATF extending its 4473 form, with a 20 year record retention, to sales of Alcohol and Tobacco. 'Are you addicted to alcohol or nicotine?' 'Are you buying for your personal use or as a bona fide gift?'

Then, let's extend the Alcohol and Tobacco regime to all transfers. Holy Communion must be officiated by a licensed alcohol dealer who checks ID and documents the symbolic serving of Christ's "blood" to the faithful. Likewise, BBQs and dinner-parties involving individuals (other than the host's immediate family members) must be officiated by a licensed alcohol dealer.

Constitutionally, there is no impediment baring State legislatures from adopting such a Universal Paperwork Check law. ATF and the FBI would simply support and enforce the State's Constitutional regime.

What? No takers? Arn't the States' legislatures concerned about drunk-drivers? Minors imbibing before driving home? What of the safety of the CHILDREN! ?

By all means, let's refine and reform our P-P laws. Let's vigorously enforce these laws. Let's maintain a database of those individuals whom we have lawfully stripped of their 2A Constitutional rights; and do so honestly and conscientiously. Let's be sensitive to the possibility that any P-P law - no matter how carefully crafted - is apt to unconstitutionally deprive a citizen of rights endowed by her Creator; strive to right these wrongs.

But harbor a delusion that prior restraint has any meaningful effect in preventing acquisition of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or unlawful drugs?

Ok. Government bans AR-15s. I pull the gas tube, cut it off with a pipe cutter and insert the stub upside down. I now have a straight pull bolt action rifle. It's no longer an AR-15. If and when a police officer shows up, I give him the other half of the cut off gas tube as proof I no longer have a semi-auto.

Meanwhile, I'm designing a pump action adapter. It's still not a semi-auto, auto loading, nothing. The rate of fire is almost as good as an AR-15 and I can even install an auto sear.

The gun violence campaign is probably the dumbest propaganda I've seen. The 30,000 deaths attributed gun violence is two thirds suicides. Good progressives believe in a right to die then claim we need more gun control to reduce gun suicides. In other words we have a right to die only in the progressive approved manner? Perhaps they're secretly being funded by the funeral industry to make their job easier. If they really cared about gun violence as they claim, common sense dictates that we shut down NICS and repurpose their 9.4 billion dollar budget for health care.

Another sign that background checks have failed is that many government agencies are no longer inputting data into the database. Ohio's governor Kasich went so far as to issue an executive order to Ohio court clerks to do their job and input the data.

OK, playing Devil's advocate for a moment, court's issue warrants to seize property all the time in just the kind of hearings you are talking about. You do not get your day in court until after your property is removed.

My concern is the potential and actual abuse. In CA's system, a second hearing to hear they "defendants" side is automatically scheduled within 21 days. In 2016, 89 of these orders were issued. In 79 cases, the order was lifted at that hearing. In other words, even though we are talking about California - over 90% of these orders were found to be groundless.

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership has issued minimum guidelines for such laws to at least provide for due process, protection of seized firearms and penalties for abuse of the system.

I also believe that the standard of proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt - not a preponderance of the evidence.

Having said all that, as a first responder, I think the focus should be on finding and committing dangerous people - not simply removing their firearms.

The laws are not banning speech, they are regulating the technology used for the speech, under certain restrictions. Hence, I doubt the First Amendment applies.

But... actually doing any good with such a law strikes me as really difficult, so I don't favor it.

Leftists Demanding Gun Confiscation – The short List updated to March 2018
https://noqreport.com/2018/04/05/leftists-demanding-gun-confiscation-short-list-updated-march-2018/
An abbreviated list* of the times the national Socialist left talked about taking everyone’s firearms.
In order to execute the necessary steps to confiscate guns, the Left must first take control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] But they need to Lie about their ultimate goal so that the people will accept this drastic intrusion into their personal lives.
The Left needs this control over private property to get the data for their final solution to the gun problem. This is the critical step for them and the reason they obsess over ‘Background Checks’. The difficulty for the Left is that they need this stepping stone to gun confiscation while denying it’s a stepping stone to gun confiscation.
This is an abbreviated list shows they are openly lying when they deny their intentions, it also shows they have developed some clever euphemisms for the taking everyone’s firearms.
March 2018
Paste Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots
New York Times – John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control “taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”
NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom [Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]
Feb 2018
Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment
New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment
La Times: No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun
Toronto Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns
November 2017
Splinter news: BAN GUNS
Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons
Redhawks Online: Guns must go
October 2017
New York Times: The Cancer in the Constitution [2nd amendment]
Prospect magazine: Dear America: it’s time to grow up and ban guns
Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.
The New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment
The Week: Ban guns
Eugene Robinson: Gun control should include buyback program like Australia’s
Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]
Washington Post Editorial Board : “President Trump, end this ‘American carnage.’”[Australian-Style Gun Ban]
June 2016
Rolling Stone: Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment
December 2015
The New York Times: End the Gun Epidemic in America [First Front Page Editorial In 95 Years]
Huffington Post: We don’t need gun control. We need domestic disarmament
New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
Salon: The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns
November 2015
The Daily Beast: Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away
October 2015
Vox: Becoming a gun-free society would be hard. But we should still try.
The Daily Kos: Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto Ban
Hillary Clinton: “In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program.”…..“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level”
Barack Obama: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
The Washington Post: A gun-free society
[Also Syndicated in the Chicago Tribune, Macomb Daily, The Oregonian, Trib live, etc.]
U.S. News & World Report: It’s True, Democrats Want to Take Your Guns
June 2015
Sun-Sentinel: Don’t just get rid of flag, get rid of the gun, too
January 2015
Tallahassee Democrat: Stop the insanity: Ban guns
June 2014
Barack Obama: “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it — we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”
May 2014
LA Times: Opinion You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.
December 2012
House Dem: ‘Turn in your guns’
The Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
Economist-The gun control that works: no guns
Washington Post, Eugene Robinson: First, Get Rid of the Guns
April 2007
Salon: Repeal the Second Amendment

*Abbreviated because a full listing would be far too long and it’s extremely difficult to track down all of these demands by the many varied euphemisms for Gun Confiscation.

A person did this. There are already many laws violated, ENFORCE THEM. The MEDIA is elevating this person to HERO STATUS. They are partly to blame for it.

"Bump stock? We don't need no stinkin' Bump Stock!"

Apologies to The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
(And Blazing Saddles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64

I have some updates for you since your list is 6 years old.

1. If you criminally misuse a gun you go to jail (your guns stays outside).

2. People who are a threat to themselves or others may be detained in a mental health facility (their guns stay outside).

As Thomas Jefferson, that 18th century liberal Democratic Republican said "no free man (or woman, et al.) shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

3. Until age 18, your parents manage your gun rights for you.

4. You are responsible for every shot you fire (except in San Francisco if you are a 5 time deported illegal alien).

5. 42 USC Sect. 1983 enacted on April 20, 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and is also known as the "Ku Klux Klan Act" Black (and white) citizens may sue persons who use the law to deny your civil rights (like New Jersey, New York, California...). Democrats taking gun rights away from poor blacks is nothing new.

I hope this helps the cause.

If I lived in AZ you would have my vote.

The problem is if ATF decides to redefine what a machine gun is by including bump stocks or Slide Fire stocks then it declares them as illegal as no new machine guns can be owned by civilians after May 19, 1986 due to the Hughes Amendment to FOPA, courtesy of Charlie Rangel.

Is there a state governor that is on the same page?

I read this far Alan.

How many of those rejected were criminal democrats?

I highly doubt that gun control groups want current laws to be enforced. It might just result in some degree of improvement - and that would work against their registration/confiscation goals!

The most any gun law can do is force criminals into the underground illegal market. This could be done with a few minor adjustments to current law:

1) Aggressively prosecute all criminals who lie on 4473 forms and make sure the are sentenced to prison. Notify local authorities so they can bring state charges and/or violate their parole or probation.

2) Prosecute all straw purchasers and make prison time mandatory. These people all have clean records, therefore the threat of prison should have some effect.

3) Make sure that all states and agencies report convictions and committals to NICS. Failure to do so should result in the loss of federal funds.

4) Open the NICS system to private sellers by requiring all FFLs to conduct checks of buyers in private sales for a reasonable set fee. LET ME BE CLEAR - I AM TALKING ABOUT OPTIONAL CHECKS, NOT REQUIRING CHECKS ON ALL OR EVEN SOME PRIVATE SALES!!! Most of us do not want to sell to a prohibited person. There are lot's of ways we can do this. We may know the person well enough and long enough to be sure that they are not a felon or otherwise prohibited. They might be able to show us a C&R license, a CCW permit, or a badge. Optional access to the NICS system would simply be one more resource that we could optionally choose to use. BATFE already publishes a manual on how dealers may do this, so it would be nothing new.

None of the above would stop criminals from getting guns. It will make it more difficult - how much more difficult is unknown. However, if BATFE actually does their job and focuses upon illegal sales, the above would likely do as much as any of the gun grabbers draconian proposals.

Remember years ago how the Holiday Traffic deaths were reported almost like of contest to see which state got the highest highway deaths?

Well, it had gone away once it was shown that while the highway death toll when up on holiday weekends, the overall death rate went down....because folks were safer on the road than at home.

I agree that this thing is an abomination. But you don't need to push your own lies to prove it. "I was there. It's revolver size. Yup, revolver sized." This image shows that it's more like 3-4 feet in length.
https://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/ny/NYNYCknottedgun_bernstein6.jpg

You may find a PDF of the Mapp order at:
http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/NATL-GUARD.pdf

"What would YOU do if armed troops showed up at your door and demanded your guns, because they had orders, or it was going to... rain?"

Wish them goodbye.

The biggest difference between a D and an R is the letter after their name.

Even if it should pass, there are 8 States and D.C. where your gun and/or ammo will still be illegal to carry.
Magazine restrictions (10 or 15 rounds), no JHP in New Jersey, only 307 legal pistols in California and fewer revolvers on the handgun roster.

Virginia has partial constitutional carry. Open carry is constitutional carry according to the state's court decisions. We are working on full constitutional carry :)

it sucks we have to legislate what's already inherent by God and the Constitution.

And the Democrats in South Carolina stalled the Open Carry permitless Concealed Carry for another year because they were arguing over raising the Gas Tax. We.ve been trying for 5 YEARS now and still can't get it past the Democrats.

While I agree with your definition, I think you are missing something in this case.

The scientists are essentially arguing about the definition of continent. Such a definition is not based on observation, experiment or hypothesis - it is meta-science, not science, and it is necessary.

I think that the climate charade has led people to believe that all of science is infected with this "consensus determines scientific results" nonsense. But, that is still just a political argument by climatistas. The work they do is not determined by consensus, but by more classical scientific means - hypotheses and experiment. I know a bunch of these folks, and while I think their reliance on climate models is deeply flawed, they otherwise are acting like scientists.

Also, some science is immune to a lot of experiment - it is more observational. Some of geology falls into this - nobody creates a continent by experiment. But, they can create a hypothesis, which is then tested against known facts and facts yet to be determined.

A good example of this is evolution. Most of the science of evolution is a result of testing hypotheses by observation, not by experiment. In more modern times, we can do some experiments... but nobody can create an experiment to evolve a monkey into a man... it would take way too long and involve far too many organisms. So not all science is a result of hypothesis -> experiment -> attempt to falsify the hypothesis.

"bear a striking resemblance, according to reliable sources, to a woman in the midst of behavior that cannot be aired on regular daytime TV."

Actually, it looks so much like a man that it's subliminally offputting.

"Left-wing racists insist on singling out people based on race"

There is one exception to that: When reporting on crimes committed by "people of color".

In that one instance you'd be hard pressed to discover a reference to the suspect's race in the reporting.

A thought provoking article. Most polls are designed to influence people, not merely gauge public opinion on an issue. A ‘push poll’ is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to manipulate or alter prospective voters' views/beliefs under the guise of conducting an opinion poll. The pollster asks leading questions or suggestive questions that “push” the interviewee towards adopting a positive or negative response to an issue. In order to conceal the manipulation the interviewee will typically manipulate the interviewee before asking a seemingly neutral question.

Thus a pro-abortion pollster would let the interviewee know they are pro-abortion and think anti-abortionists are immoral while informing them about main the arguments in favor of abortion (none against) and then ask a seemingly neutral question: “Do you support abortion?” The question is not neutral of course as most people are naturally averse to saying “no” to a proposition and would rather say “yes”. How do you know if interviewees were subject to such manipulation? You do not, but must assume they were. You must treat all polls as propaganda designed to service the interests of the people who pay for them and be willing counter your opponent’s rigged polls with your own.

If you think the latter course of action is “immoral” or "dishonest" then perhaps you might like to condemn the Allies for misleading the Nazis about where the D-Day landings were.

This article reveals the extremist mindset of some politicians. Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) famously wrote in his 1821 play Alamansor: "where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well"; which turned out to be all too true in relation to the burning of Jewish books by the Nazis who subsequently burnt Jews after gassing them. Likewise, the burning of guns by power hungry politicians represents their desire to murder people who threaten their power by possessing guns.

This is nothing new. Probably 80% or more of what the press calls "deportations" are voluntary returns (V/Rs). True deportation is a court proceeding and formally deporting every alien caught at the border would clog the Immigration Court system so that people under deportation proceedings would be either incarcerated or out on bond for years awaiting a hearing. Deportations also cost money, and the alien pays for his own V/R. Formally deporting every apprehended alien would financially destroy the DHS. V/R is the only practical way to remove a large number of illegal aliens from the United States. In some jurisdictions, a certain number of V/Rs automatically makes the alien eligible for a formal deportation hearing.

...continuing.
To directly speak of 'fake news', UFO reports and the like defies credibility. But what of 'Russian influence of USA elections'? Of the latter, we would necessarily rely on the 4th estate. And who is to say if they are less than trustworthy?

Well, by their fruits ye should know them and it is be constant monitoring with a somewhat jaded eye which is the answer. Well, those things plus a memory. How soon do most people forget the news of even one year ago? Such is to the benefit of the MSM which seeks a bombardment of constant 'breaking news' and with an ever shorter new cycle.

Why, in this manufactured environment, PT Barnum would have a field day! That the MSM has lost control via the internet blogs but mostly due their own duplicity has to have wrought much hand wringing among them.

Hey, I know! Let's do what we do best, let's come up with something, oh I dunno, call it 'fake news' whereby we get to decide for the people what is trustworthy or not. Of course, by painting a picture that 'they' are fake, we get to win back the perception that we are trustworthy. For we are not them.

Sharyl Attkisson spoke of this at her address at the Richard Nixon library in March 2015.

To paraphrase, to avoid the pushback (from WH and government at large, and those in the media who are water bearers for the WH), the MSM has mostly deleted true investigative journalists in favor of those who parse through the webpages of Salon, Buzzfeed, etc so that they may pass on as news what they themselves have read. This is collusion.

Then there is the manipulation of social media (Twitter being most favored) where a handful of MSM-types will open multiple 'personas' per employee which then parrot each other and can seem to appear as a groundswell, a consensus whereby the general public is likely to adopt that perception.

Are "legit absentees" somehow sure to be counted while "not legit" ones won't be?

How do the counters tell the difference.

Maybe "legit absentees" should just not bother either?

A classic example; the all inclusive "ignorance of the law is no excuse" scenario. How is a lay citizen supposed to live up to that requirement, even though it is "modest" when compared to our current tax code, which is a monstrosity that has just kept having layers added to it, with layers made obsolete by subsequent layers not removed from the code. ( Although it seems SOME effort to "take out the trash" may have been made with AZ gun laws ) EVERYONE needs a lawyer now, even for everyday activity.

RACIST!

Making being able to read a requirement to hold office!!..

Next you will me trying to make being able to comprehend the bills mandatory to hold office.

Dissing Hank Johnson for thinking Guam would tip over wasn't enough for you huh?

Answers:
Q1: It is not unreasonable, in fact, it is preferable. The objection comes from them with nefarious intent to effect unethical, immoral, perhaps criminal want to skew the election. An aside, Imagine the vociferous raging from those same persons if it were the 'other side' wanting to do same.

Q2: ditto

Q3: These people are the unthinking, uncaring, ignorant and uniformed (willfully so in most accounts) who have traded their liberties for the govt cheese. (They didn't intend to have actually ceded their liberties for they don't think that deeply. Too, those people continue to rally in their cry for their 'rights', In actuality, they intended to trade their responsibilities, yet unknowingly had relinquished the attendant liberties. Summarized, they are the useful idiots.)

Q5: Yes, the elections within a sovereign state are limited solely to the lawful citizens of that state. I would go a step further and require proof of a lasting allegiance to that sovereignty and assimilation into the culture of the same.

Q6: No. It matters why they are otherwise ineligible. Of course, here is the possibility of one who has truthfully proclaimed (and demonstrated) the aforementioned allegiance yet may be deemed ineligible due to incarceration or something along that line. But a civil society should have and uphold a code of conduct for lacking that the binds of society should quickly unravel. In that case, to what would one declare their allegiance? Therefore, anyone who is deemed ineligible should be denied a vote. That is, whether one is ineligible or whatever the reason, or is not in allegiance to, or is foreign to, the sovereign state is unsuitable to cast a vote for office of that state.

An aside: unqualified is a synonym of unsuitable. Therefore, the argument could be should there be a qualifying of the constituency? My answer is yes. It has been tried before such as in the case of land ownership but that was rendered unlawful. I suppose I will leave this as a kind of overhead question. However, I can think of certain tests which would pass muster. To speak of that would require more words than allowed here.

Thanks! I've fixed it.

http://lists.serverhost.net/admin/de/%20

has been prepended to the URL above

http://townhall.com/columnists/alankorwin/2016/09/25/shouldnt-the-presidential-debate-ask-about-guns-we-already-have-n2223393

So this means there is a 60% chance the weather this year will not be unusually adverse.

Proofread your screed. At the least, for accuracy.

Weathermen and economists get paid for being wrong.

The exception would be John Lott.

This is most certainly the way to precipitate the Second American Civil War (ACWII).

As the government tries to outlaw ammunition or additional firearms it does risk the few rising up and shooting the jack-booted thugs who try to enforce it and then the politicians who enacted it and the judges who uphold it.

We liven perilous times and the Democrats will go down in history as the party that provoked it unnecessarily.

Awesome synopsis article. Alan I love the way you write regarding second amendment issues. You always write in away that is so clear and gets to the heart of the subject.You bring such sound reasoning to the issue. It seems like when I read your articles I cry out "that's exactly right"
Keep it up.

It also says that, if you appeal, the appeals court will affirm the denial "based on a reasonable suspicion ... of conduct constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to terrorism..."

In other words, nothing even remotely resembling a burden of proof here. Not even the weak "preponderance of evidence" standard.

The other problem is the "Selectee list" which appears to be a secret list operating by secret rules. The bill certainly doesn't say what the rules are, only that the "standard as of June 16, 2016" is to apply. Whatever that may mean.

Thanks! Fixed it.

In item 9. you have the typo, "the U.S. Supreme Curt's descriptions". It should be "Court's" not "Curt's".

An excellent read. Now I'm wondering how this can be applied in other states. CA as example.

It seems a shame that those born to American parents serving their country overseas, say, in the military or as Ambassadorial staff loose their eligibility to be elected president because of their parents service to the country.

I guess it should be made a requirement that the parents of any such birth be provided transportation to the US, and for their return, for the birth of their child at no expense in dollars or "leave" time to them

David Codrea, I believ, coined the term "Peacable Citizen"...

I WONDER if possession of the letter "Z" is a big enough offense. Oh , right. There is nobody to ask.

My Friends and Fellow Patriots. Alan Korwin, is a writer and someone I trust to spell it out...what just happened with New Gun Laws announced by Obama. Please take time to read the facts, the truths and the lies embedded in the Obama Speech "A crowd pleaser for the left, and the ignorant" Alan and I met a few years back at a National Trade Show in Las Vegas and I truly trust his take on the action upon our 2nd Amendment and Constitution Rights. Please READ and SHARE...Please

Thanks for giving us the straight of it, Alan. I knew we could count on you. I've shared it on Facebook for both my intelligent friends/family and also those too misinformed, misguided, or just plain clueless to know the 2nd Amendment is the last defense against tyranny.

IF gun control works, why are homicides in Washington D.C. up 54% in 2015? Anybody? link: http://www.unz.com/isteve/thanks-eric-holder/

Thanks for pointing this out, Thane! I've corrected the link for Alan.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/04/korwin-the-left-cant-pass-any-common-sense-gun-control-laws-because-they-arent-proposing-any/

Mr. Korwin, your hyperlinks need a "http://" otherwise they will be relative instead of absolute.

Alan, you are so right about the rich Arab states not wanting the rabble from Syria in their countries. And yes, they will bring their problems with them and much, much more.

But, you can't say that they aren't offering to help, after all,Saudi Arabia did offer to build 200 Mosques in Germany.

And the Caliphate continues to grow...

To Bill S., so you're a proponent of shooting-on-sight anyone seen in mere possession of an "assault rifle" in public? So you'd shoot all of the open-carry demonstrators on sight if you ever happened to drive by one of those demonstrations?

As far as why I choose to carry a concealed weapon but not bother with a bulletproof vest, maybe it's because I don't consider myself to be nearly as much of a live target as a uniformed police officer seems to be lately.

I'm also concerned enough about a house fire that I have a fire extinguisher in the house, but I don't wear a Simpson seven-layer fire suit to bed every night.

Mr. Bill S., even though you apparently don't carry a concealed weapon on your person, don't you still wear a bulletproof vest? If not, why not? Are you actually that unconcerned about your personal safety? There are dangerous people out there with guns! - Mark C.

We are already subamred.

Fully armed would mean we have access to any individual arms in common use by our military.

LAWs (or their upgrades included) and anything that does not need to be towed behind a vehicle to be deployed.

El Prez won't use the phrase Islamic Radicals" because it's not accurate. These are Islamic Fundamentalists we're dealing with trying to pursue the purest form of Islam they know based on the life and times of their prophet who was after all a horse barbarian.

The difference between Big Mo and any of the others from Alexander to Genghis Khan is that Mo made his empire stick by imposing his religion on the conquered. Convert or Die is very persuasive.

"The real power rests with 100 million gun owners, who vote, contribute, demonstrate, and are armed."

That is EXACTLY why the left is so intent on disarming everyone but their enforcers. It's so much easier to control, and eventually eliminate defenselesss populations. (And historically elimination has always been the ultimate outcome. Read below and follow the link to read how leftist governments murdered about 262 million of their citizens in the 20th century alone ... After first disarming them.)

No matter what additional unconstitutional infringements of our gun rights are passed - bans, registration, and/or any/all other infringements of our rights, I will not comply. Millions more will not comply.

To quote a few of their heroes, with explanatory comments in ( ):

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao
(They revere Mao and the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to them, a “feature,” not a “bug.”)

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. … The only real power comes out of a long rifle. … Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. … We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? … The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” — Joseph Stalin

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that kall conquerors who have allowed the 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.” — Adolf Hitler
(These psychopathic sociopaths in our government – and THEY ARE PRECISELY THAT, never make the mistake of doubting it – believe that they are anointed to be our rulers and that we are the equivalent of Hitler’s “subject races.” And we know what they did to "them.")

Obama's DHS Gestapo and other alphabet agencies have recently purchased over 1.8 BILLION rounds of hollow point ammo – enough to shoot every man, woman, and child in the country 5 times or more - enough for over 20 years of warfare here in the homeland at the intensity of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict - ammo that’s illegal for military use under international law, and have just ordered more and an additional 7,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC "personal defense" weapons. They have also recently purchased almost 3,000 armored fighting vehicles for use on the streets of America, in addition to the many already obtained from DoD. How does anyone with the capability of rational thought escape the conclusion that the ruling class is preparing for a war on its own citizens?

Feinstein, Schumer, Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Durban, and their whole gang are tyrant wannabes. To them, anyone who does, or might, oppose their control over every aspect of our lives, is “a criminal” because they said so.

Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered millions
Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered millions
Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.
The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.
Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.
Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.
The list goes on … about 262 MILLION people were murdered BY THEIR OWN (leftist, totalitarian) GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments to disarm them. See: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you. Don’t tell me, “It can’t happen here in America.” To borrow a quote from Mike Vanderboegh, “Anyone who tells you that ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no ‘house rule’ that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos.”

The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The ruling class thinks they can ignore (and will quite enthusiastically gut) the Constitution. We have allowed them to accumulate too much illegitimate power and organize their agencies too well to trust them with the Constitution. They must be forced, by any means required in the end, to obey it or be removed from power.

“A tyrannical rule cannot in any reasonable construction be accounted lawful, and therefore the disturbance of such a government cannot be esteemed seditious, much less traitorous.” – Thomas Aquinas

When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty – Thomas Jefferson

It appears that President Obama has signed this measure.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr26

And when they say NRA, most times they actually mean the ILA anyways, don't they?

No sane business owner will be rebuilding anything there.

Let the looting animals enjoy their charred wasteland.

Hey, let's not start using common sense in this issue. You know we are talking about GOVERNMENT here, and usually GOVERNMENT and common sense are mutually exclusive.

A friend has a great expression, "Panic early and avoid the rush" meaning be prepared.