Buying Guns? Why . . . You Won't Be Able To Carry or Use Them!
Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
Shock revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado would have arrested anyone who stopped the Batman massacre with a concealed weapon Read that title again . . . and let it really sink in.Two days ago I asked the commonsense question, "Why didn't anyone fight back against James Holmes, the shooter who shot so many people in the Batman movie theater?" See that article here: http://www.naturalnews.com/036537_James_Holmes_Batman_shooting.html
Now the answer has become clear: Because Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:
• Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
• Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.
Thus, any person who would have shot James Holmes and stopped the massacre would, themselves, have been arrested as a criminal!
In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to stop a massacreSnip . . .
Violent criminals now know to target Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Longmont and other "gun ban" cities in ColoradoAccording to current Colorado law (http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm), it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in all the following cities:
Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Colorado Springs, Denver, Englewood, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmont, Northglenn, Pueblo, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge.
It is illegal to even OWN a large number of firearms in Thornton and Lafayette. In Aurora, it is illegal to carry a firearm in a vehicle! Thus, even driving to a movie theater with a firearm in your own car makes you a criminal.
These laws did not stop James Holmes from driving with a loaded gun in his car, along with explosives that were also found in his car. Once again, this demonstrates that gun control laws only disarm the public while allowing criminals to have "free reign" over a completely helpless public.
Here are some of the other gun control laws that already exist in Aurora: (http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm)
1. "Dangerous weapon" includes firearm
2. Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.
3. Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.
4. Unlawful to carry concealed "dangerous weapon"
5. Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.
6. Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant
7. Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.
8. Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.
By definition criminals do not abide by such lawsSnip . . .
"Mass shootings can be stopped. People need to arm themselves with the facts (and with weapons). If one law-abiding person in the theater had been carrying a gun, lives could have been saved," writes Hillary Cherry at CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/auroras-strict-gun-laws-didnt-preve...).
And she's right.
Gun disarmament really means gun concentration in the hands of government Read that AGAIN!Snip . . .
Self defense is a DIVINE rightThe right to protect your person, your children and your family is a divine right, granted in alignment with the principles of our Creator. We see self defense reflected throughout nature, from the spines on a cactus plant to the ability of nearly every plant or animal to fight back against predators that would cause it harm.
The United Nations, which is an evil, destructive force of global domination, does not recognize the fundamental human right of self defense. Instead, it pursues a philosophy of a "monopoly of violence" in the hands of world governments.
The United Nations, in other words, is not truly "anti-gun," it simply wants all the guns in the hands of government workers and none of the guns in the hands of the people.
Remember this about gun control: No government seeks to eliminate ALL guns. It only seeks to monopolize the guns in the hands of government and thereby create a so-called "monopoly of violence" to be used against the People.
Snip . . .
We already have millions of law-abiding citizens all across the country who responsibly carry concealed weapons, acting as a powerful deterrent to outbreaks of violence. Those citizens pass background checks, they get fingerprinted, they must pass training courses to show competency in handling firearms. But citizens who can stop crime are not welcomed in Aurora, Colorado! Because stopping a massacre in Aurora is a crime!
Aurora, the city of surrender to violent crimeSnip . . .
City and state officials of Colorado are, in my view, negligent in these deaths and should be sued by the families of the survivors for criminalizing self defense. Shame on these officials! Shame of those who demand that we all become victims of violent crime. Shame on those who call for yet more disarmament of the public which will inevitably lead to yet more violent crime that can't be stopped.
Think about these FACTS for a second• The massacre in Aurora took only two minutes to carry out.
• The average response time of police is, at minimum, six minutes (and getting worse).
• A typical concealed carry holder can draw, aim and shoot back in less than five seconds. Do the math.
NRA: To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To Great Britain (10:40) A MUST WATCH!
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal? By Larry Bell
One year ago I wrote an article titled “U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms” which has recently gained a great deal of renewed public interest. This update reviews some more recent developments, offering additional perspective about an immediate matter which should be of great concern to all who value rights guaranteed by our Second Amendment.
The Obama administration is actively engaged in negotiations to finalize details for a new global agreement premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates”. As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon describes its purpose, “Our goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence…It is ambitious, but it is achievable.”
Under the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. originally voted against a resolution that began the process in 2006. However, the current administration reversed that policy, and strongly supports its enactment. In January 2010, U.S. representatives joined with those of 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution to draft a blueprint for enactment in 2012. This activity is planned to be completed by July 27, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push hard for Senate ratification. Previously led by the United Kingdom, there can be no doubt that the U.N.’s 193-member General Assembly will approve it.
Foreign ministers of the U.K., France, Germany and Sweden want the treaty to cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies. They also advocate that it include strong provisions governing human rights, international humanitarian law and sustainable development. (More about sustainable development later.)
All photos are from this Larry Bell article:
Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Internal Security and Nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, has stated that the Obama administration does not support regulation of ammunition, but only wants to make it more difficult to “conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms”. In addition, a press release issued by the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs says that “The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons.”
Such statements have many very strong skeptics, both inside and outside Congress. One reason, among many, is that Iran, a country that is one of the world’s worst human rights violators, yet often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council…yes Iran, arms supplier to many of America’s most determined adversaries… was selected for a top Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) planning conference position. The members, apparently including U.S. representatives, authorized this selection shortly after the same U.N. found the very same Iran guilty of transferring guns and bombs to the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad who is presently slaughtering thousands of its own citizens. Meanwhile, the U.N., America included, purporting to be distraught about illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms, watches in the wings as these tragedies unfold. Of course, they’re very busy. Those arms control planning conferences require a lot of attention.
On June 29, 130 Republican House members sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton arguing that the proposed treaty infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter charges that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” The lawmakers adamantly insist that the U.S. Government has no right to support a treaty that violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Democrats have accused Republicans of making this a political issue, maintaining that the treaty poses no Second Amendment threat. Others, such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, caution gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
So let’s review some recent history and see if gun owners and other Second Amendment defenders might have very good reasons to take issue with this treaty. Actually, we don’t have to look back very far at all.
Consider the Fast and Furious debacle, an operation that was represented to be all about targeting bad guys who are committing violent crimes on both sides of our border with Mexico. There can be no remaining doubt that the program was really aimed at border gun shops and their right to conduct legal civilian firearms sales.
And after the 2010 Republican House cleaning dashed President Obama’s dream of a carbon cap-and-trade program, he wasted no time finding a way to circumvent that pesky obstacle. His EPA is gleefully pursuing that same anti-fossil energy agenda. Meanwhile, Congress sits idly by and allows this breach of its constitutional responsibility established by separation of powers to continue.
Then there’s the currently proposed, Obama-endorsed, Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If ratified by Congress, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights. As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.
The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free. And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.
Both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush supported the treaty during their tenures, yet they never sent it to the Senate for ratification because of opposition over concerns that it will limit commerce and allow international bodies to wield control over U.S. interests. During W’s term of office, then-Senator Joe Biden introduced LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he chaired in 2007, yet it was never brought to the floor for a vote.
Steven Groves, an international law fellow at the Heritage Foundation, believes that opposition from Republican members of Congress who have objected to LOST reflects a legitimate deep-seated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies, observing: “This seems to me a bit of a Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country’s environmental policy. That’s generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans.”
Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry and other proponents have been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive.
But, like LOST, the Arms Trade Treaty can’t be enacted unless Congress ratifies it. Right? And, of course, they would never approve any global agreement that will infringe upon our constitutional Second Amendment protections. Right? Well, let’s assume for argument’s sake that they won’t. But now consider another possibility, something called a “soft law”.
Remember that sustainable development agenda mentioned earlier that the European foreign ministers want to incorporate into the treaty provisions? Originally intended to be implemented in connection with a U.N. treaty, an “Agenda 21” plan was enacted as a soft law in 1993 creating a nongovernmental organization, the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI), by Executive Order after the Clinton administration was unsuccessful in getting Congress to ratify the program. They wouldn’t approve the treaty because it would transfer massive regulatory control over broad aspects of U.S. energy production and consumption. In 2003 the NGO’s name was changed to “ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability” to emphasize “local” and diminish concerns about “international” influence and associations with U.N. political and financial ties. ICLEI’s are now active in most of our counties On its web page, “ICLEI: Connecting Leaders”, the organization explains that their networking strategy connects cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies.
Agenda 21 envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption. A summary version titled AGENDA 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993), calls for “…a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced—a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.” The report emphasizes that “This shift will demand a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
ICLEI’s web page states that its Local Agenda 21 [LA21] Model Communities Programme is “designed to aid local governments in implementing Chapter 28 of Agenda 21, the global action plan for sustainable development.” As Gary Lawrence, a planner for the city of Seattle and an advisor to the Clinton-Gore administration’s Council on Sustainable Development and to U.S. AID commented at a 1998 U.N. Environmental Development Forum in London titled “The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium”, “In some cases, LA21 is seen as an attack on the power of the nation-state.” He went on to say, “Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process will very likely bring out many…who would work to defeat any elected official…undertaking Local Agenda 21 …So we will call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”
And so they have. “Comprehensive planning”, “growth management” and “smart growth” (which is Agenda 21 with a new name). All mean pretty much the same thing… centralized control over virtually every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, housing stock and allocation, population levels, public health and dietary regimens, resources and recycling, “social justice” and education.
So this time the U.N.-sponsored ATT initiative, whether enacted by Congress or through a soft law Executive Order, can be expected to receive an appealing identity as well. Most likely it will purport to protect us from “terrorism”, “insurgency” and/or “international crime syndicates”. Perhaps, without saying so, it will be pitched to protect us even from ourselves.
Don’t forget that an Illinois senator named Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. That was after he served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago which contributed large grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
But then, as a former lecturer in constitutional law, wouldn’t he certainly realize that the U.N.’s gun- grab agenda violates our sovereign rights? Perhaps the answer to that question warrants some serious reflection!
The Bypassing of Representative Government http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Governance.html
By: Kirk F. MacKenzie July 26, 2012
Government is responsible for two things: setting policy, and enforcing that policy.
Representative government is being bypassed by the creation of unelected, unaccountable, non-transparent regional planning bodies that serve the interests of their so-called stakeholders rather than those of the People. This is done by usurping the policy-making authority of legitimate government. The politically correct term for this is governance, as contrasted to government.
In this paper, these bodies will be referred to as Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). In the USSR, they are referred to as soviets, hence the name the United Soviet Socialist Republic. They may also be called public-private partnerships (PPPs), the basis of fascism.
Everyone needs to know how this is being done, how to recognize it, and how to defeat it before it takes away our voices, property & property rights, prosperity, independence, and free will.
Governance / Federalism
The question arises as to how to handle problems that cross jurisdictional boundaries. At the founding of our country, this was handled by conventions of delegates at which issues of common concern were discussed and proposals developed. These proposals then went to their respective States for approval.
Ultimately, a permanent congress was created for this purpose. It grew into a national government. Under the Constitution, this national government was delegated certain limited powers to address issues of common concern, such as commerce and defense.
We have seen how the federal government ignored these imposed limits and eventually took over. This same model is being used to usurp representative government at every level.
The Creation of Non-Government “Governments”
The justification to create a NGO is to find or create one or more problems that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
The process is gradual. It begins by finding a cross-jurisdictional issue and creating a regional discussion group to consider it. This group evolves into a permanent council or association that engages in central planning. Eventually, this permanent group takes unto itself the power to make policy decisions.
As a consequence, democratically-elected governments are stripped of their policy making power, and become nothing more than shells to enforce the central plans created by the NGOs. Accountability, transparency, and representation are lost, and the People ignored in favor of special interests that typically gain power over, and financial benefits from, areas they don’t live in, pay taxes in, or suffer the consequences of.
Things that cross jurisdictional boundaries include commerce, transportation, plants, animals, and water. Fraudulent labeled endangered species are perfect for building NGOs. Salmon, for example, provide the excuse to take over entire river systems. Spotted owls provide the excuse to take control of entire forests. Buffalo provide the excuse to take control over private property, farmlands, communities, counties, and even states.
The bigger the problem the bigger the NGO. Justifying global government, for example, requires problems that span continents. How about air (carbon credits), water (oceans), and weather (global warming)?
By creating multiple overlapping NGOs, representative governments are made entirely irrelevant. Such is the case in Siskiyou County, for example, where property and water rights are under attack by the spotted owl listing, the coho salmon listing, forestry regulations, emerging controls over groundwater, and much more.
An Entire Parallel Structure
NGOs are being created at all levels: local, county, regional, state, national, and global. Cumulatively, these bodies create a parallel structure that bypasses Constitutional government. Here are some examples.
Snip . . .
Please take the time to READ the rest of this very important article by clicking on the link at the top of this section.
You will discover 'communism in the raw' that is ongoing across our country . . . carried out by all manner of traitors.
DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchablehttp://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/gun_control/news.php?q=1237163642Re- Posted Juy 24, 2012
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."
"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
Conspiracy Theories Aren’t Always False, Just Unpopular
. . .The Church hearings brought to light the agency’s involvement in years of psychological manipulation of test subjects using drugs, hypnosis and barbaric medical procedures. It was discovered that the CIA had developed the ability to control the minds of those it had manipulated using signals, often making them carry out sexual or deviant acts that would otherwise be out of character.
You can read more about some of the CIA mind-control initiatives in declassified documents that have been compiled by a global team of researchers and intelligence experts here.
It is also no secret that Federal agencies stage incidents on a regular basis. In recent years, to perpetuate the threat of terror, the FBI has coerced individuals into going along with outlandish terror plots and provided weapons and supplies to them. It has been estimated that 14 of the 22 major terror attack threats on American soil since 9/11 were actually FBI sting operations.
With such past evidence, it is a danger to cast aside any alternate explanation of Holmes’ actions as too outlandish, fearmongering or conspiracy. And such an easily politicized tragedy should — and would in a responsible society — be vetted for means, motive and opportunity from a variety of perspectives.
US government ran chemical experiments on military veterans under operations MKUltra, Bluebird and Artichoke
Mind Control Cover-up: The Secrets of Mind ControlThis mind control summary is based on astonishing excerpts from three landmark books: Bluebird by Colin Ross, MD; Mind Controllers by Armen Victorian; and A Nation Betrayed by Carol Rutz. The authors provide hundreds of footnotes to support their thorough research. This revealing information is based on 18,000 pages of declassified CIA mind control documents.
The CIA Mind Control Projects
A CIA document dated 10 Feb 1954  describes an experiment on the creation of unsuspecting assassins: "Miss [deleted] was then instructed (having expressed a fear of firearms) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken Miss [deleted] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep) and failing this, she would pick up a pistol and fire it at Miss [deleted]. She was instructed that she would not hesitate to "kill." Miss [deleted] carried out these suggestions including firing the (unloaded) gun at [deleted]. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened. Miss [deleted] expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened." BB 36, 37
U.N. Commission Calls for Legalizing Prostitution WorldwideA report issued by the United Nations-backed Global Commission on HIV and the Law; recommends that nations around the world get rid of “punitive” laws against prostitution – or what it calls “consensual sex work” -- and decriminalize the voluntary use of illegal injection drugs in order to combat the HIV epidemic.
The commission, which is made up of 15 former heads of state, legal scholars and HIV/AIDS activists, was convened in 2010 by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and is jointly backed by the United Nations Development Programme and UNAIDS – the Joint U.N. Programme on AIDS/HIV. Where is the voice of We The People on this 'commission'? Just WHO are those 'former heads of state'?
It's called the 'Hegelian Dialectic' (Goggle it) of 'problem, reaction, solution'. Create the problem, let the reaction seethe, and then voila . . . 'they' come up with the 'solution'. Just like the 'solution' to 9/11 was the 'USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T ACT' . . . "The title of the act is a ten letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_Act). See how they twisted and perverted our love of America in order to get us to go along with such an outrageous Constitutional abomination!
Researcher, Author and Founder