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
(THIS IS WHY WE HAVE GUNS!)
Warning: Graphic Violence. This
disturbing video clearly demonstrates the consequences of centralizing government power and disarming
citizens.Genocide always follows, leaving millions of innocent victims
Innocents Betrayed - The History of Gun Control - FULL LENGTH
INNOCENTS BETRAYED -- JPFO Production -- 58
minutes - DVD 2003.... This has to be the greatest professional production of the effects of gun control. This
production shows actual footage of gun confiscation and its effects. This is a must video for gun shows.....
"Something is out there. Finding it will change your life. Stopping it will change the world." History's worst
serial killer roams the earth - calculating, methodical, and brutal. The victims - men, women, and children -
numbered 170,000,000 in the 20th century. And the toll is still rising. Tragically, these victims actually depend
upon their killer, they trust the kiler to protect them. But in the end, using laws, edicts, propoganda, and
finally sheer force, the killer renders millions powerless. And destroys them... Horriffic persecution, slavery,
and mass murder engulf nation after nation... Germany, China, Cambodia, Soviet Union, Guatemala, Uganda, Turkey,
Rwanda. No country is safe. Not even the U.S.A. But who is this killer whose victims incomprehensebly outnumber
those of every Bundy, Manson, or Dahmer? And what can you do to help stop the slaughter? Watch "Innocents Betrayed"
and you'll have the lifesaving answers to both questions...... (2003 documentary by Jews For The Preservation of
Firearms Ownership, Inc.) Directed by Aaron Zelman -- Produced by Aaron Zelman & Dr. Ignallus Plazza -- Screen
Play by Claire Wolfe -- Creative Consultant, Richard W. Stevens.
Did You Know a Law Is On The Books to Disarm All
Law provides impetus for "ultimate world
disarmament" and U.N. control over military
Public law 87-297, the Arms Control and Disarmament
Act signed by President Kennedy in 1961, provides an impetus to not only ban civilian firearm ownership
but to also transfer control of the U.S. military to the United Nations.
“It is the purpose of this Act to provide impetus toward this goal by creating a new agency of peace to deal
with the problem of reduction and control of armaments looking toward ultimate world disarmament,” the law
The law was based primarily on State Department
Publication 7277, The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World,
which advocates the complete disarmament of every country in favor of a permanent U.N. military force:
DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to
common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world
which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which
adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives
toward which nations should direct their efforts:
The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form
whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace
The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the
means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining
The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of
disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework
of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
“The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to
civilians by [Article 2] of the Arms Trade Treaty,” wrote Joe Wolverton II of the New American. “Article 3 places the ‘ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered
by the conventional arms covered under Article 2′ within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.”
Rand Paul Urges Supporters To Stop Obama Ammo
Ban "The President is not a king and the Constitution means what it"
by Steve Watson | Infowars.com | March 9, 2015
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has called on his supporters to
flood the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms with complaints and comments in order to prevent Obama’s
executive move to ban so called green tip ammunition.
In a letter published via Paul’s political action committee, RANDPAC, the Senator stated
“President Obama is determined to cement his anti-gun agenda into law.”
“I’m counting on your immediate action to help RANDPAC flood the agency with a message from America’s pro-gun
majority,” Paul adds.
Paul also notes that previous action by his supporters was instrumental in preventing an attempt by the
President to expand background checks via executive action.
“Your grassroots muscle played a vital role in defeating President Obama’s national gun registration scheme in
2013,” Paul writes. “And your support is needed again to defend our Second Amendment rights in 2015.”
The proposed ammo ban has caused consternation among hundreds of lawmakers who wrote to the BATF last week, urging it to “abandon” the plan.
“Under no circumstances should ATF adopt a standard that will ban ammunition that is overwhelmingly used by
law-abiding Americans for legitimate purposes,” the lawmakers wrote.
Meanwhile, top police representatives have said that there is no real need to implement a 5.56 ammo ban, because it isn’t a
threat faced by law enforcement.
Senator Paul’s letter is accompanied by a petition which states “Despite how Obama tries to impose his agenda
through executive fiat, the President is not a king and the Constitution means what it says.”
“Democrats up-and-down the ballot were flushed out of office in the 2014 elections as a result of pushing
Obama’s radical anti-gun agenda,” the petition also states, adding that “[The] ammo ban is a backdoor route to
imposing President Obama’s gun control.”
“As a member of America’s pro-gun majority, I proudly stand for the Second Amendment and oppose ANY and ALL
efforts to subvert our Constitutional rights.” The petition concludes.
Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of
Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from
Nottingham Trent University.
NYC mayor warns that group promotes “confiscation of guns
from law-abiding citizens”
February 10, 2014
Nearly 50 mayors have jumped ship on former NYC Mayor
Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” campaign over allegations that the group’s ultimate goal is
outright gun confiscation, according to one former member.
As reported, Poughkeepsie Mayor John Tkazyik published a
statement in last week’s Poughkeepsie Journal coming clean about the group’s true intentions,
total disarmament of law-abiding gun owners.
“Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of
guns from law-abiding citizens,” Tkazyik said, confirming what many already suspected about the group.
“Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did,” he also
The fact that 50 mayors bailed in response to a concerted effort to undermine the Bill of Rights is certainly
headline-worthy, but so far, unsurprisingly, few other media outlets have picked the story up.
And Tkazyik isn’t the first to cast these allegations. In 2007, the mayor of Williamsport, Pa., also said she
left after witnessing “dubious” attempts to subvert the Second Amendment. “I have learned that the coalition may be
working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership, and that some actions on your behalf are dubious,”
then-Williamsport Mayor Mary Wolf wrote in a letter to Bloomberg himself.
And just last year, during a Mothers Demand Action rally (a gun control coalition which merged with MAIG in December 2013), Austin, Texas City Councilman Mike Martinez singled out a protestor carrying a “Stop the Gun Ban” sign and told him,
“…there is no gun ban currently, but because of the work we’re doing here today, we will make your sign
legitimate shortly, so you hang on to that.”
News of the group’s traitorous crusade comes at a time when American gun owners are already wary of continual
attempts to curtail firearm ownership. Since the Sandy Hook school shooting, the Obama administration has proposed
legislation aimed at combating “gun violence,” including proposals that would require background checks for all gun
sales; in effect, registration.
American gun owners who know the history behind gun control are fearful that a federal gun registry will eventually lead
to confiscation. Indeed, numerous articles have been published showing how, since 2007, roving law enforcement
teams have been disarming Californians deemed “illegal” using a list of owners.
The fact that groups like MAIG are to the point of openly
bragging about their intentions doesn’t bode well for gun owners. It signifies the establishment is preparing to
take grand strides to convince the American public of the “dangers” posed by guns. That means more contrived scenes
of violence with guns at their center.
The fact that Obama has repeatedly asserted his willingness to work around Congress to make things happen is
also worrying. In his 2014 State of the Union speech he also mentioned that his administration would continue
to address “gun violence,” and that he intends to “keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more
tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters and our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy
It should now be abundantly clear that any reassurances, given by known liars such as Obama or any of his
anti-Second Amendment teams, are merely to placate gun owners into a state of pacification and complacency.
However, the jig is now up and the curtain has been lifted.
Overall, 50 mayors bailing on the group over its future plans shows a definite sea change in the way public
servants are regarding citizens’ rights and the Second Amendment. However, it is simply incredible that more
mayors, knowing the treasonous goals of the organization, have not abandoned ship.
Poughkeepsie, N.Y. mayor says he left the group over
February 7, 2014
A current New York mayor has publicly announced his decision to leave
Mayors Against Illegal Guns because the gun control group demands an all-out “confiscation of guns from
Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg co-founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns
in 2006 to promote gun control.
In an announcement published by his city’s
newspaper, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Mayor John C. Tkazyik said he quit the group after realizing it was simply a
vehicle for Michael Bloomberg to “promote his personal gun-control agenda.”
“It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns,” he
stated. “Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation
of guns from law-abiding citizens.”
“I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on
our right to bear arms and I will not be a part of any organization that does.”
Tkazyik also pointed out that Chicago’s extremely high crime rates are undeterred by the city’s highly
restrictive gun laws.
“Depriving law-abiding citizens of their right to own firearms only makes them more vulnerable,” he added.
Tkazyik’s announcement is a stark contrast to the rhetoric of other politicians who want to grossly violate
While pointing at a sign held by a protestor which read “Stop Gun Ban,” Martinez said that “someone needs to
inform him that there is no gun ban currently, but because of the work we’re doing today, we will make [his] sign
“So you hang on to that [sign],” he said to a cheering crowd of gun control advocates.
And in a flashback to 1995, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.)
told 60 Minutes that she wanted to outright ban all firearms owned by Americans.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of
them … ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,’ I would have done it,” she said.
This is the true intent of gun control, even though many of its advocates whitewash the truth with a variety of
propaganda techniques or by just simply being ignorant.
For example, the organizers for the event at which Martinez spoke told reporters that they didn’t want to ban
guns even though that is exactly what Martinez demanded in his speech.
Gun control advocates constantly parrot deceptive phrases such as “common sense solutions” and “we don’t want to
ban guns” when selling their agenda which will only lead to the complete disarmament of the population by
Fortunately, on the other hand, Mayor Tkazyik is joining an ever-increasing list of public officials who have
denounced gun control.
“Coming from California, where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine,
where they give out lots of Carrying Concealed Weapon [permits], and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying;
that was my orientation,” he said. “I changed my orientation real quick; Maine is one of the safest places in
“Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”
And last year, Erie Co., N.Y. Sheriff Timothy B. Howard publicly announced that his department would not enforce
New York’s latest gun control law, the SAFE Act.
“It’s an unenforceable law and I believe it will ultimately be declared unconstitutional,” he said to reporters. “Do you want law enforcement people that will say
‘I will do this because I’m told to do this, even if I know it’s wrong?’”
It is refreshing to see elected officials serving their constituents while also respecting the Bill of
This article was posted: Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 11:40 am
THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS TO FIGHT
TYRANNY AND GENOCIDE!!
170,000,000 KILLED BY GOVERNMENT IN THE 20TH
56 Million Exterminated Under the Guise of Gun Control!!
DHS Has Now Acquired Enough Bullets To Wage 30 Year
The Fight for RTKBA in Public Opinion & in Missouri
Eric Holder wants the media to propagandize
the public about gun control. Bloomberg wants Facebook to censor gun posts. And 3 gun control groups strategized at
SXSW on how to fight the right to keep and bear arms using social media.
But in a short time, and on a weekday, gun owners rallied to publicly show what responsible gun owners and guns are
not to be feared. And it appears the Missouri legislature will use its 10th Amendment powers to protect
individuals' right to keep and bear arms from federal encroachment.
Gun Parts Manufacturer Files Restraining Order Against
Ares Armor, a California gun parts manufacturer, has filed a temporary restraining order against
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for fears the federal agency could soon bust down its
doors. The report also details Operation Fast And Furious.
The explosive gun control documentary Disarmed: A
History of Gun Control, which examines the true statistics behind firearm use and gun control legislation, has
released for free online.
Disarmed breaks down research that amounts to hundreds of pages and dozens of hours into a high energy
blast of information that is catered towards both hardened firearm activists and gun control
advocates alike. As the statistics and data come together, the key points in the film are backed by reality
that goes beyond the media manipulation and emotional hype surrounding the entire issue of gun
control and gun freedom
You’ll discover hard-hitting information, such as the real numbers behind firearm deaths verses what the
media would like you to believe, how ‘gun free zones’ are actually fueling crime, how
mass shooting ‘epidemics’ actually tie into gun control zoning, how to protect yourself from looming gun bans, how
to beat back insane legislation that is attempting to trample the Second Amendment, self-defense tips, and much
Disarmed is designed to be the ultimate ‘reality check’ to share with anyone and everyone who still
clings to the purported effectiveness of gun free zones and gun control legislation. As Mike Adams
“Disarmed is totally hard hitting, it is a 31 minute red pill for those who still cling to
the concept of gun free zones and mass disarmament.” – Mike Adams of NaturalNews
In addition, Disarmed is created in such a way that it details the blatant failures behind attempts by control
freak politicians to seize weapons through complete and utter gun bans. Politicians that are physically protected
via firearm-wielding security forces or actually carry their own hand gun for self-defense purposes
Man Who Fled Communism Blasts Oregon Lawmakers For Gun
“This is Marxism, plain and
A man who fled Cuba’s communist regime in the 1960s
blasted Oregon lawmakers Thursday during a public hearing on proposed gun control legislation.
Manuel Martinez, who narrowly escaped Cuba in 1962 after
being imprisoned for opposing Fidel Castro, passionately defended the Second Amendment in front of Oregon’s Senate
Judiciary Committee, comparing the state’s attempts to pass gun control to moves made by his former government.
“Don’t sell me this. A very powerful man tried to sell me this 50-something years ago, I didn’t buy it,”
Martinez said. “This is Marxism, plain and clear.”
The legislation, Senate Bill 1551, proposes massively expanding background checks to almost every private sale,
somehow expected to force criminals to voluntarily submit to a records check.
“They put this dog and pony show saying hey, we are going to protect you. No, what they did was enslave a
country,” Martinez said. “They destroyed a country the same way that this country is going to be destroyed if we
continue in this fashion. This is what you’re selling here!” Martinez said, holding up old communist magazines from
Martinez was joined by others opposed to the legislation, as well as several supporters including
national gun control advocate Capt. Mark Kelly. A vocal critic of “assault rifles,” Kelly was caught purchasing an AR-15 last March in Arizona. After investigators contacted Kelly’s
gun control group to question the purchase, Kelly suddenly announced he never intended to keep the firearm, but
instead bought the rifle in order to hand it over to police.
“We all know what this bill is about. This is a gun registration and confiscation bill,” Starrett said. “Let’s
not tell the same lies we told in New York and California.”
Despite the obvious move towards registration, the bill’s author, Democratic Sen. Floyd Prozanski, claimed no
records would be kept past 10 days, calling Starrett a “conspiracist” for not blindly trusting the government’s
Outside of Oregon, President Obama has continued to threaten gun rights through executive action, pushing to
chip away at patient privacy laws. Despite reassurances, the medical system continues to be fraudulently used for backdoor gun confiscation.
"Don't sell me this. A very powerful man tried to sell me
this 50-something years ago, I didn't buy it"
Manuel Martinez, who narrowly escaped Cuba in 1962 after being imprisoned for opposing Fidel Castro, passionately
defended the Second Amendment in front of Oregon lawmakers Thursday during a public hearing on proposed gun control
Oath-violating Bateman also made veiled death threats
Paul Joseph Watson
December 6, 2013
Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, the second
amendment-hating Army Officer who caused controversy after vowing to “pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers,”
works closely with the Department of Homeland Security.
Earlier this week, Bateman, an active military commander, penned a piece for Esquire magazine in
which he promised to push for a total ban on all firearms besides muskets, shotguns and rifles, and shut down all
gun manufacturers except for those who produced weapons for the federal government and the armed forces (you will
be disarmed, the state will have a monopoly on firepower).
Critics contend that Bateman’s revulsion for the second amendment (which he woefully misinterprets)
“proves he knows nothing about the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.”
Bateman’s promise to “pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers” was an
inflammatory reference to his advocacy for making it illegal for guns on his imaginary blacklist to be inherited.
“I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes,” wrote Bateman.
Later in the article, Bateman says disarming the American people is all about encouraging “less
violence and death,” although such sentiments weren’t evident when he became embroiled in an argument with a
blogger which ended up with the Colonel making a thinly veiled death threat.
After Bateman engaged in “ad hominem attacks” against Maximilian Forte, the blogger who posted the
story, and was subsequently banned, he resorted to a veiled death threat of his own.
“And I apologize for the future. Not really my fault. But I am sorry nonetheless,”
“You apologize for the future. It was worth approving your message just so that others can see the
veiled threat,” responded Forte.
Bateman repeated the threat in a subsequent post when he remarked, “And again, Max, truly, I am
sorry for your future.”
Bateman’s thinly veiled death threats reveal him to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, someone who
claims to be all about reducing violence yet resorts to barely disguised rhetorical threats of violence against his
It seems abundantly clear that it is Bateman who has a problem with violence and is most likely a
danger to himself and those around him. It is therefore Bateman, and not the American people, who should be
Feel free to politely email Col. Bateman and
let him know what you think about his views on the second amendment.
The ATF's National Firearms Act is fast approaching. The act would include:
* the agency's definition of a "responsible person"
* require persons in trusts to submit photographs and fingerprints
* and require all applications to be forwarded to law enforcement
NFL Declares War on 2nd Amendment for
Proof: Obama Is Coming For You Guns
-- Psychological Operations --
“People in general just will NOT,
take their heads out of the sand!”
Psyops, or psychological operations, is a term used to describe the
techniques of psychological manipulation used in warfare. These operations are used to deceive, confuse, disrupt
and demoralize the enemy, with an aim toward weakening enemy resistance or even causing enemy forces to surrender
and enemy populations to capitulate.
“Federal law enforcers are targeting merchant categories like payday lenders, ammunition and tobacco sales, and
telemarketers – but not merely by pursuing those merchants directly,” Jason Oxman, the CEO of the Electronic
Transactions Association, wrote
on the subject. “Rather, Operation Choke Point is flooding payments companies that provide processing service
to those industries with subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other burdensome and costly legal
Oxman explained the superficial logic behind Operation Choke Point: by increasing the legal and compliance costs
of serving “disfavored merchant categories,” financial institutions will “simply stop providing service to such
“And it’s working – payments companies across the country
are cutting off service to categories of merchants that – although providing a legal service – are creating the
potential for significant financial and reputational harm as law enforcement publicizes its activities,” he
Last month, BitPay, a U.S.-based bitcoin processor, refused to do business with gun dealer Michael Cargill of
Central Texas Gunworks due to its Terms of Service which excludes merchants involved in firearm sales, ponzi schemes,
“get rich quick” programs, “money service businesses” (such as payday loans), gambling and others which are
all listed in the FDIC document.
“Unfortunately, the strategy is legally dubious,” he wrote. “[The] Justice [Dept.] is pressuring banks to shut
down accounts without pressing charges against a merchant or even establishing that the merchant broke the
Last August, 31 members of Congress became aware of
Operation Choke Point and
sent a letter to the Justice Dept. asking for information on the program, stating that it “has come to our
attention that the DOJ and the FDIC are leading a joint effort that according to a DOJ official is intended to
‘change the structures within the financial system … choking [online short-term lenders] off from the very air they
need to survive,’” in reference to payday lenders listed as a “high-risk activity” alongside firearm sales in the
They also warned that the agencies were acting outside of their congressional mandate and without statutory
It’s no surprise that Operation Choke Point came into existence during Eric Holder’s reign as Attorney General,
who famously said in 1995 that he wanted to “brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different
Holder has only increased such rhetoric since then and is
undoubtedly one of the most anti-gun politicians inside the beltway.
Holder is also one of the most corrupt bureaucrats as well. When his unconstitutional abuses are exposed, it is
common for Holder to deny that they are taking place, even if the evidence is in plain view.
But he was later held in contempt of Congress for refusing to release thousands of internal Justice Dept.
documents in response to a subpoena. Even President Obama invoked executive privilege to prevent the documents from being
people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?
Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously
comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative
work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. In this paperback edition, Lott has expanded
the research through 1996, incorporating new data available from states that passed right-to-carry and other gun
laws since the book's publication as well as new city-level statistics.
"Lott's pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data. . .
. If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks
pretty near bulletproof."--Peter Coy, Business Week
"By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil
it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott's book could
hardly be more timely. . . . A model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and
policy."--John O. McGinnis, National Review
"His empirical analysis sets a standard that will be difficult to match. . . . This has got to be
the most extensive empirical study of crime deterrence that has been done to date."--Public Choice
"For anyone with an open mind on either side of this subject this book will provide a thorough
grounding. It is also likely to be the standard reference on the subject for years to come."--Stan Liebowitz,
Dallas Morning News
"A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay
attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime
rates."--James Bovard, Wall Street Journal
"John Lott documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are willing to go to denigrate
anyone who dares disagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful, scholarly
approach to a highly controversial issue." --Milton Friedman
Is Owning Guns Racist?
The push to brainwash the public on gun confiscation i.e. Eric Holder is rearing its ugly head
once again. But fact is stronger than fiction. The spin on the NRA and bogus research studies can't stop the
liberty of the American people.
Laws Designed to Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, and African-Americans
Before the Civil War ended, State “Slave Codes” prohibited slaves from owning
guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in
prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed “Black Codes.” They did so on the basis that
blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms
protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by
the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery.
The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing
the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment,
as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those
particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original
Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through
economic means laws remain in effect.
After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878,
most States turned to “facially neutral” business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention
of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia’s official university law review called for a “prohibitive
tax … on the privilege” of selling handguns as a way of disarming “the son of Ham”, whose “cowardly practice of
‘toting’ guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime … .Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart
of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before
he alights.” [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil
Rights Law Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, “Gun Control and Racism,” Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern
States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun
In the 1990s, “gun control” laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist
effect if not intent:
Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to
those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among
Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out
for gun bans.
“Gun sweeps” by police in “high crime neighborhoods” whereby vehicles and
“pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon” are searched are
becoming popular, and are being studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as “Operation
Sample Slave Codes, Black Codes, Economic-Based Gun Bans
Used To Prevent The Arming Of African Americans, 1640-1995
Race-based total gun and self-defense ban. “Prohibiting
Negroes, slave and free, from carrying weapons including clubs.” (Los Angeles
Times,To Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun
Control, January 19, 1992)
Race-based total gun ban. “That all such free Mulattos,
Negroes and Indians … shall appear without arms.” [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of
all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W. W.
Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)
Race-based total gun ban. “An Act for Preventing Negroes
Insurrections.” (Henning, p. 481) (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)
Race-based total gun ban. “An act for the better ordering
and governing of Negroes and slaves.” [7 Statutes at Large of South Carolina, p. 353-54 (D. J.
McCord ed. 1836-1873).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)
2nd Amendment to the U. S.
Constitution ratified. Reads: “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.”
Blacks excluded from the militia, i.e. law-abiding males
thus instilled with the right to own guns. Uniform Militia Act of 1792 “called for the enrollment
of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five” to be in
the militia, and specified that every militia member was to “provide himself with a musket or
firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.” [1 Stat. 271 (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2,
“The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration,” Robert Cottrol and Raymond
Diamond, 1991, p. 331)]
Complete gun and self-defense ban for slaves. Black Code,
ch. 33, Sec. 19, Laws of La. 150, 160 (1806) provided that a slave was denied the use of firearms
and all other offensive weapons. (GLJ, p. 337)
Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Apr. 8, 1811, ch. 14,
1811 Laws of La. 50, 53-54, forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves. (Id.)
Master’s permission required for gun possession by slave.
Act of Dec. 18, 1819, 1819 Acts of S. C. 28, 31 prohibited slaves outside the company of whites or
without written permission from their master from using or carrying firearms unless they were
hunting or guarding the master’s plantation. (Id.)
Slave and free black homes searched for guns for
confiscation. “An Act to Govern Patrols,” 1825 Acts of Fla. 52, 55 - Section 8provided that white
citizen patrols “shall enter into all Negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and
other offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away such arms, weapons, and
ammunition …” Section 9 provided that a slave might carry a firearm under this statute either by
means of the weekly renewable license or if “in the presence of some white person.”
Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval.
Act of Nov. 17, 1828 Sec. 9, 1828 Fla. Laws 174, 177; Act of Jan. 12, 1828, Sec. 9, 1827 Fla. Laws
97, 100 - Florida went back and forth on the question of licenses for free blacks; twice in 1828,
Florida enacted provisions providing for free blacks to carry and use firearms upon obtaining a
license from a justice of the peace. (Id.)
Race-based total gun ban. Act of Jan. 1831, 1831 Fla.
Laws 30 - Florida repealed all provision for firearm licenses for free blacks. (Id. p.
Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. In
the December 1831 legislative session, Delaware required free blacks desiring to carry firearms to
obtain a license from a justice of the peace. [Herbert Aptheker,Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion, p. 74-75
Race-based total gun ban. In the December 1831
legislative session, Maryland entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 75)
Race-based total gun ban. In the December 1831
legislative session, Virginia entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 81)
Slave and free black homes searched for guns for
confiscation. Act of Feb. 17, 1833, ch. 671, Sec. 15, 17, 1833 Fla. Laws 26, 29 authorized white
citizen patrols to seize arms found in the homes of slaves and free blacks, and provided that
blacks without a proper explanation for the presence of the firearms be summarily punished, without
benefit of a judicial tribunal. (Id. p. 338)
Race-based total gun ban. Act of Dec. 23, 1833, Sec. 7,
1833 Ga. Laws 226, 228 declared that “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this
state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever.” (Id.)
Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Feb. 25, 1840, no.
20, Sec. 1, 1840 Acts of Fla. 22-23 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden. (Id. p.
Complete gun ban for slaves. “An Act Concerning Slaves,”
Sec. 6, 1840 Laws of Tex. 171, 172, ch. 58 of the Texas Acts of 1850 prohibited slaves from using
firearms altogether from 1842-1850. (Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, Northwestern University, Vol. 85, No.
3, “Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-In-Point”, T. Markus Funk,
1995, p. 797)
Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not
citizens.” In State v. Newsom, 27 N. C. 250 (1844), the Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld a
Slave Code law prohibiting free blacks from carrying firearms on the grounds that they were not
citizens. (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)
Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Jan. 1, 1845, ch. 87,
Sec. 1, 2, 1845 Acts of N. C. 124 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden.
Slave and free black homes searched for guns for
confiscation. Act of Jan. 6, 1847, ch. 87 Sec. 11, 1846 Fla. Laws 42, 44 provided that white
citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave and confiscate arms held
therein. (Id. p. 338)
Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not
citizens.” In Cooper v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled “free
persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms,
vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.” (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)
Race-based complete gun ban. Act of Mar. 15, 1852, ch.
206, 1852 Laws of Miss. 328 forbade ownership of firearms by both free blacks and slaves. (JCLC
NWU, p. 797)
High Court upholds slavery since blacks “not citizens.”
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney argued if members of
the African race were “citizens” they would be exempt from the special “police regulations”
applicable to them. “It would give to persons of the Negro race … full liberty of speech … to hold
public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Id. p.
417) U. S. Supreme Court held that descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and
sold as slaves were not included nor intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the
Constitution, whether emancipated or not, and remained without rights or privileges except such as
those which the government might grant them, thereby upholding slavery. Also held that a slave did
not become free when taken into a free state; that Congress cannot bar slavery in any territory;
and that blacks could not be citizens.
Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Dec. 19, 1860, no.
64, Sec. 1, 1860 Acts of Ga. 561 forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves.
Civil War begins.
Slave and free black homes searched for guns for
confiscation. Act of Dec. 17, 1861, ch. 1291, Sec. 11, 1861 Fla. Laws 38, 40provided once again
that white citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave, and confiscate
arms held therein. (Id. p. 338)
Emancipation Proclamation President Lincoln issued
proclamation “freeing all slaves in areas still in rebellion.”
Blacks require police approval to own guns, unless in
military. Mississippi Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military“ and not licensed so
to do by the board of police of his or her county” from keeping or carrying “fire-arms of any kind,
or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” [reprinted in 1Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious,
Educational and Industrial, 1865 to the Present Time, p.
291, Walter L. Fleming, ed., 1960.] (GLJ, p. 344)
Blacks require police and employer approval to own guns,
unless in military. Louisiana Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military service, from
“carrying fire-arms, or any kind of weapons … without the special permission of his employers,
approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.” (Fleming, p. 280)
Civil War ends May 26.
Slavery abolished as of December 18, 1865.
13th Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified. Reads: “Section 1. Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or in any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
Race-based total gun ban. Black Code of Alabama in
January 1866 prohibited blacks to own or carry firearms or other deadly weapons and prohibited “any
person to sell, give, or lend fire-arms or ammunition of any description whatever” to any black.
[The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates, p. 209, (Alfred Avins ed., 1967)]
Rights of blacks can be changed by legislature. North
Carolina Black Code, ch. 40, 1866 N. C. Sess. Laws 99 stated “All persons of color who are now
inhabitants of this state shall be entitled to the same privileges, and are subject to the same
burdens and disabilities, as by the laws of the state were conferred on, or were attached to, free
persons of color, prior to the ordinance of emancipation, except as the same may be changed by
law.” (Avins, p. 291.) (GLJ, p. 344)
Civil Rights Act of 1866 enacted. CRA of 1866 did away
with badges of slavery embodied in the “Black Codes,” including those provisions which “prohibit
any Negro or mulatto from having fire-arms.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress,
1st Session, pt. 1, 474 (29 Jan. 1866)] Senator William Saulsbury (D-Del) added
“In my State for many years … there has existed a law … which declares that free Negroes shall not
have the possession of firearms or ammunition. This bill proposes to take away from the States this
police power …” and thus voted against the bill. CRA of 1866 was a precursor to today’s 42 USC Sec.
1982, a portion of which still reads: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right,
in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease,
sell, hold and convey real and personal property.”
Proposed 14th Amendment to U. S.
Constitution debated. Opponents of the 14th Amendment objected to its
adoption because they opposed federal enforcement of the freedoms in the bill of rights. Senator
Thomas A. Hendricks (D-Indiana) said “if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title [of
citizenship] and enjoy its advantages in common with the Negroes, the coolies, and the Indians.”
[CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 3, 2939 (4 June
1866)]. Senator Reverdy Johnson, counsel for the slave owner in Dred Scott, opposed the amendment
because “it is quite objectionable to provide that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States’.” Thus, the
14th Amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
especially since the act “is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South,” e. g. Florida
has as “a misdemeanor for colored men … and the punishment … is whipping …” [CONG GLOBE,
39th Con., 1st Session, 504, pt. 4, 3210
Klu Klux Klan formed. Purpose was to terrorize blacks who
voted; temporarily disbanded in1871; reestablished in 1915. In debating what would become 42 USC
Sec. 1983, today’s federal civil rights statute, Representative Butler explained “This provision
seemed to your committee to be necessary, because they had observed that, before these midnight
marauders [the KKK] made attacks upon peaceful citizens, there were very many instances in the
South where the sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims.
This was especially noticeable in Union County, where all the Negro population were disarmed by the
sheriff only a few months ago under the order of the judge … ; and then, the sheriff having
disarmed the citizens, the five hundred masked men rode at nights and murdered and otherwise
maltreated the ten persons who were in jail in that county.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37,
41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb.
The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of
1867. Report noted with particular emphasis that under the Black Codes, blacks were “forbidden to
own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assaults.” (Reprinted in H.
Hyman,The Radical Republicans and
Reconstruction, p. 219, 1967.) (GMU CR LJ, p.
14th Amendment to the U. S.
Constitution adopted, conveying citizenship to blacks. Reads, in part: “Section 1. All persons born
or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “Section 5. The Congress shall
have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
First “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban
passed. In the first legislative session in which they gained control, white supremacists passed
“An Act to Preserve the Peace and Prevent Homicide,” which banned the sale of all handguns except
the expensive “Army and Navy model handgun” which whites already owned or could afford to buy, and
blacks could not. (Gun Control: White Man’s
Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) Upheld in
Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.)165, 172 (1871) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74) “The cheap revolvers of the
late 19th and early 20th centuries were referred to as
”Suicide Specials,“ the ”Saturday Night Special“ label not becoming widespread until reformers and
politicians took up the gun control cause during the 1960s. The source of this recent concern about
cheap revolvers, as their new label suggest, has much in common with the concerns of the gun-law
initiators of the post-Civil War South. As B. Bruce-Briggs has written in the Public Interest, ”It
is difficult to escape the conclusion that the “Saturday Night Special” is emphasized because it is
cheap and being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence -- the
reference is to “niggertown Saturday night.” (Gun Control:
White Man’s Law,William R. Tonso, Reason, December
Anti-KKK Bill debated in response to race-motivated
violence in South. A report on violence in the South resulted in an anti-KKK bill that stated “That
whoever shall, without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats, take away or
deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or
possession for the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny
thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37,
41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)].
Since Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction over simple larceny, the language was removed from the
anti-KKK bill, but this section survives today as 42 USC Sec. 1983: “That any person who, under
color of any law, … of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person … to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities to which … he is entitled under the
Constitution … shall be liable … in any action at law … for redress … .”
High Court rules has no power to stop KKK members from disarming
blacks. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. at 548-59 (1875) A member of the KKK, Cruikshank had
been charged with violating the rights of two black men to peaceably assemble and to bear arms. The U.
S. Supreme Court held that the federal government had no power to protect citizens against private
action (not committed by federal or state government authorities) that deprived them of their
constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. The Court held
that for protection against private criminal action, individuals are required to look to state
governments. “The doctrine in Cruikshank, that blacks would have to look to state government for
protection against criminal conspiracies gave the green light to private forces, often with the
assistance of state and local governments, that sought to subjugate the former slaves and … With
the protective arm of the federal government withdrawn, protection of black lives and property
was left to largely hostile state governments.” (GLJ, p. 348.)
Second “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban
passed. Tennessee revamped its economic handgun ban nine years later, passing “An Act to Prevent
the Sale of Pistols,” which was upheld in State v. Burgoyne, 75 Tenn. 173, 174 (1881). (GMU CR LJ,
Third “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban
passed. Arkansas followed Tennessee’s lead by enacting a virtually identical “Saturday Night
Special” law banning the sale of any pistols other than expensive “army or navy” model revolvers,
which most whites had or could afford, thereby disarming blacks. Statute was upheld in Dabbs v.
State, 39 Ark. 353 (1882) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)
First all-gun economic ban passed. Alabama placed
“extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes“ on the sale of handguns in an attempt ”to put
handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.“ (Gun
Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason,
First total civilian handgun ban. The state banned all
pistol sales except to sheriffs and their special deputies, which included the KKK and company
strongmen. (Kates, ”Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States“
inRestricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak
Out, p. 15, 1979.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 76)
Race-based confiscation through record-keeping.
Mississippi enacted the first registration law for retailers in1906, requiring them to maintain
records of all pistol and pistol ammunition sales, and to make such records available for
inspection on demand. (Kates, p. 14) (GMU CR LJ, p. 75)
Fourth ”Saturday Night Special“ economic handgun ban.
Placed ”extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes” on the sale of handguns in an attempt
“to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.” (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R.
Tonso, Reason, December 1985)
Police choose who can own guns lawfully. “Sullivan Law”
enacted, requiring police permission, via a permit issued at their discretion, to own a handgun.
Unpopular minorities were and are routinely denied permits. (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R.
Tonso, Reason, December 1985) “(T)here are only about 3, 000 permits in New York City, and 25,
000carry permits. If you’re a street-corner grocer in Manhattan, good luck getting a gun permit.
But among those who have been able to wrangle a precious carry permit out of the city’s bureaucracy
are Donald Trump, Arthur Ochs Sulzburger, William Buckley, Jr., and David, John, Lawrence and
Winthrop Rockefeller. Surprise.” (Terrance Moran,Racism and
the Firearms Firestorm, Legal Times)
Gun Control Act of 1934 (National Firearms Act)
Judge admits gun law passed to disarm black laborers. In
concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford
stated the 1893 law “was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers … The same
condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of
disarming the Negro laborers … The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population
and in practice has never been so applied … .” Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So. 2d 700,
703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)
Why Mass Shooters Target Gun Free Zones
Published on Apr 3, 2015
The Al-Shabaab terror attack which left 147 people dead at a college in Kenya Thursday may have been averted if
citizens had been permitted to carry firearms, as previously outlined by the chief of the International Criminal
Police Organization (INTERPOL).
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. we
all want liberty. Find the free live feed athttp://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jo...
Sandy Hook, False Narratives Vs. The
Alex is joined by national school safety consultant, former educator, US Customs agent
and Florida state trooper, Wolfgang Halbig .Halbig and Alex to examine the host of peculiarities surrounding the
Sandy Hook school shooting.
The Following Historical Events Are Included as Context for
Passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968:
Supreme Court held racial segregation of schools violates
Alabama bus segregation ordinance held unconstitutional
after boycott and NAACP protest.
Massive resistance to Supreme Court desegregation ruling
called for by 101 Southern congressmen.
Congress approved first civil rights law for blacks.
Governor ordered National Guard troops to prevent nine blacks from entering all-white high school
in Little Rock; President Eisenhower had to send federal military troops to enforce court order
that Guardsman be removed.
Sit-ins began February 1 when four black college students
in Greensboro, NC, refused to move from a lunch counter after being denied service; by 1961, more
than 700, 000 students, black and white, had participated in sit-ins.
3,000 troops were required to quell riots after
University of Mississippi accepted first black student.
200, 000 people participated in March on Washington, at
which Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech. President John F. Kennedy
assassinated in November.
Omnibus civil rights bill barring discrimination in
voting, jobs, discrimination, etc.; three civil rights workers reported missing in Mississippi,
found buried two months later, 21 white men arrested, seven of whom an all-white federal court jury
convicted of conspiracy only.
34 dead in race riot in Watts area of Los Angeles,
First black U. S. senator in 85 years elected (Edward
Race riots in Newark, NJ, kill 26, injure 1, 500, with
over 1, 000 arrested. Race riots in Detroit, MI, killed at least 40, injured 2, 000 and left 5, 000
homeless; was quelled by 4, 700 federal paratroopers and 8, 000 National Guardsmen. Thurgood
Marshall sworn in Oct. 2 as first black justice of the U. S. Supreme Court.
Martin Luther King assassinated in April. Robert F.
Kennedy assassinated in June.
Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun
journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was “passed not to
control guns but to control Blacks.” [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU
CRLJ, p. 80) “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and
inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that
their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control
law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear
in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968
Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated
Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control ofrifles and shotguns after the
assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with ahandgun … The moralists of our
federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind
of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen
not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell game, but from the inapplicability of the law to their
deaths.” (The Saturday Night Special and Other
Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)
Fifth “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban
passes. Ban on “Saturday Night Specials,” i.e. inexpensive handguns, passes.
Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Illinois.
Starting in late 1988, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Chicago Police Dept. (CPD)
enacted and enforced an official policy, Operation Clean Sweep, which applied to all housing units
owned and operated by the CHA. The purpose was the confiscation of firearms and illegal narcotics
and consisted of warrantless searches and of a visitor exclusion policy severely limiting the right
of CHA tenants to associate in their residences with family members and other guests, tenants had
to sign in and out of the building, producing to the police or CHA officials photo Id. Relatives,
including children and grandchildren, were not allowed to stay over, even on holidays. CHA tenants
who objected or attempted to interfere with these warrantless searches were arrested. The ACLU
filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the CHA tenants against the
enforcement of Operation Clean Sweep. The complaint was filed in the United Sates District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on December 16, 1988, as Case No. 88C10566
and is styled as Rose Summeries, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority, et al. A consent decree was
entered on November 30, 1989 in which the CHA and CPD agreed to abide by certain standards and in
which the scope and purposes of such “emergency housing inspections” were limited. (GMU, p.
Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Virginia. U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld a ban imposed by the Richmond Housing
Authority on the possession of all firearms, whether operable or not, in public housing projects.
The Richmond Tenants Organization had challenged the ban, arguing that such requirement had made
the city’s 14, 000 public housing residents second-class citizens. [Richmond Tenants Org. v.
Richmond Dev. & House. Auth., No. C. A. 3:90CV00576 (E. D. Va. Dec. 3, 1990).] (GMU, p.
President seeks to single out all poor citizens residing
in federal housing for gun ban. The Clinton Administration introduced H. R. 3838 in 1994 to ban
guns in federal public housing, but the House Banking Committee reject edit. Similar legislation
was filed in 1994 in the Oregon and Washington state legislatures.
Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Maine. Portland,
Maine, gun ban in public housing struck down on April 5, 1995.
Baby's Got A Gun
From the producers that brought you the 30-minute animated short film “The American
Dream,” Shock and Awe Short’s latest work, Baby’s Got a Gun, explores the media manipulation and fanning of the gun
control flames, and highlights the fact that people are 47,000 times more likely to die in a car crash than in a
mass shooting. “One of the most highly charged issues in America is guns, and gun control, so there’s no one better
to break it all down than Bad Ass Baby. He’s going to expose the Lying Liars and get to the truth of the gun
debate: that it isn’t about guns at all!”
Mexican President Wants to Disarm Americans
U.S. to Surrender Military Control to UN While Disarming
A new Smart Phone app describing itself as “tattle ware” allows users to upload information
regarding locations where they have “gun related concerns,” allowing people to anonymously report their neighbors
and others if issue is taken with their ownership of firearms.
July 13, 2013 The Gun Geo Marker app, created by a group
called The Walkingtools Laboratory and available through the Google Play Android marketplace, says "marking
dangerous sites on the App's map" will let "you and others... be aware of the risks in your neighborhood."
"The Gun Geo Marker operates very simply, letting parents and community members mark, or geolocate, sites
associated with potentially unsafe guns and gun owners," the app's Google Play store description states.
"Electronically marking these locations can help others in the area learn about their geography of risk from
gun accidents or violence," the software's creators claim.
GunGeoMarker.org's "Gun Marking Guidelines" outline what types of gun owners users should be concerned with, in
addition to making political jabs at the U.S. Congress, the National Rifle Association, and varying degrees of
The program gives users the option to mark homes, businesses and other locations with different designations
that the app's creators believe will increase public safety because, as its website states, "congress has left
parents with so few options to protect their families from potentially dangerous gun owners that erring on the
side of safety is highly advised."
Gun owners fearful of a centralized gun-owner database may thank the University of California in San Diego
along with the Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil for the ingenious app, which can not only identify homes
that are merely suspected of having guns, but can also note if those guns are loaded or not, and whether or not
they may be locked in a safe.
According to the app's guidelines, "unlocked, loaded or carelessly stored weapons should generally be treated
with concern by friends, neighbors and visitors," and should be marked.
Also, if you've recently just picked up your first firearm, you're liable to be marked as a threat by someone.
"First time gun owners or others who may not have not [sic] taken basic gun safety training, or who were not
raised in a culture of gun safety, represent a real and present danger to their community, themselves and their
family members," the site states. http://www.infowars.com/new-app-allow...
“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,” said Rep. Trent
“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,” Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) said on Fox News back in the
The first rule of the drone program is
that you do not talk about the drone program
Feb 25, 2013
In a rare admission, Robert Gibbs, the former White House
Press Secretary under Obama, told reporters Sunday that he was ordered to act as if there was no such thing as an
active US drone program.
“When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the first things they told me was, you’re
not even to acknowledge the drone program,” Gibbs said on MSNBC’s “Up With Chris Hayes” this past weekend.
Gibbs said that he was told “You’re not even to discuss that it exists.”
Noting that the notion was “inherently crazy”, Gibbs said “You’re being asked a question based on reporting of a
program that exists.”
“So you’re the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program—pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain.” Gibbs, who was Press Secretary between 2009 and 2011, said.
Gibbs stated that he expects the drone program to remain secret for the most part, despite moves in Congress to
force more transparency.
“I have not talked to him about this, so I want to be careful,” Gibbs said, “but I think what the president has
seen is, our denial of the existence of the program when it’s obviously happening undermines people’s confidence
overall in the decisions that their government makes.”
While the program itself remains classified, it is no secret that Obama has vastly expanded the US drone war
since entering office in 2009. Daily drone strikes are raining down on Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as
A recent report released by Washington based think tank, The New America Foundation
revealed that the number of secret US drone strikes in Yemen almost tripled in 2012, compared to 2011.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, has found that at least 171 civilians, including 35 children, have been
slaughtered in Yemen by secret US drone strikes over the past ten years.
Communications released by WikiLeaks in 2010 revealed that the US and Yemen have repeatedly attempted to cover
up the use of US warplanes to bombard Yemen.
Last week it was announced that despite the fact that drone strikes have killed thousands of innocent civilians
in Yemen and Pakistan, the Pentagon is to reward drone operators with medals.
The DoD is creating a new ribbon, called the Distinguished Warfare Medal that will be awarded for “extra
achievement” related to a military operation. This will encompass sitting at a computer console and pressing a
button to release Hellfire missiles from Predator drones hundreds and thousands of miles away.
The medal will become the fourth-highest ranking combat decoration, placing above the Bronze Star.
Despite the official secrecy, the president has referred to the drone program several times in public, as have
officials such as counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan.
Last year, the New York Times ran a major piece on the program revealing that the White House
has asserted the right to carry out state-sponsored assassination anywhere in the world without having to
provide any evidence or go through any legal process.
The administration merely has to state that the target is
a terrorist and it doesn’t matter whether they are an American citizen or not, as we saw in the case of American-born Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, who were both killed last year.
In December of last year, Obama administration lawyers reaffirmed their backing for state sponsored
assassination, claiming that “U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets” and do not have the right to any
legal protection against being marked for summary execution.
During a CBS 60 Minutes interview in January, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
revealed that Obama himself personally approves the policy to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism
without trial on a case by case basis.
Perhaps the real reason that the administration wants the details of the programme kept under wraps is that, as
reported by Propublica recently, the programme is potentially much bigger in scope than
anyone had previously thought.
The administration’s figures do not add up, they are chock full of contradictions and discrepancies, and there
can be little doubt that there have been many many more civilian deaths as a result of drone attacks than have been
Akram, who noted that US drone strikes had killed more than 1,000 civilians in Pakistan, also said “We find the
use of drones to be totally counterproductive in terms of succeeding in the ‘war against terror’. It leads to
greater levels of terror rather than reducing them.
Many also contend that the attacks infringe the national sovereignty of Pakistan and constitute an act of
a report by Washington think tank The New America Foundation found that 32% of the more than
1,200 people killed since 2004 in Pakistan, or around 1 in 3, were innocent bystanders rather than dangerous
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of
Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from
Nottingham Trent University.
This article was posted: Monday, February 25, 2013 at 11:00 am
Learn how top United Nations proponents exploit small
arms, the environment, and justice to pressure Capitol Hill into quietly surrendering America's heritage of
freedom. Should these UN plans remain unopposed, the consequences are ultimately grim. There is, however, a way to
avert this danger. (2001, 60 min., DVD)
REACH OUT TO OTHERS
[Help Educate Family And Friends With This Page And The Links Below]