Vatic Note: This is where non compliance is a key element of resistance. If the powers that be ignore the "laws" of our nation and are not prosecuted, then we must do the same. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If its against the law to buy weapons from private parties, then do so anyway. If we all do it, how will they enforce the law without cooperation from the masses?
To counter our efforts to arm ourselves, the powers that be, bought up the ammo companies and are going to use the ammo to negate the guns. It is important to dig through the ammo and test fire it to ensure its usability. There are other such "non-compliance" examples to do. If a law is used to harm the people then do not comply with it. Let me give you an example with respect to their "depopulation" plans.
Have you noticed that car manufacturers are now making new cars of fibre glass, and very very low to the ground, with much smaller engines out front. That means if their is an accident, its more likely the occupants may die, then simply get injured if hit from the front. So, what does the legal system do, to match that fact???? They say you MUST WEAR YOUR SEAT BELT OR YOU WILL BE FINED FOR VIOLATIONS. A seat belt in such a situation as described above, ensures you cannot get away from the small engine and steering wheel from crushing your chest.
In the past, when I owned a steel large automobile and seat belt wearing was voluntary, I got hit head on by a drunk driver in a truck. I was not wearing a seat belt and I got thrown off to the right into the passangers seat, and the steering wheel, cam back through the drivers seat. I would have been killed instantly had I been wearing a seat belt. That is how they are playing the game.
Its subtle and not blatantly obvious. If I had not had the experience I did, I would not have picked up on the changes so readily. Anyway, you read and decide.
Guns Save 2,191 Lives Each Day In The US: FBI ~ 32 Guns Purchased Every Minute In The United States.
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2014/09/24/everyday-in-the-usa-2191americans-use-their-gun-in-self-defense-fbi-there-are-32-guns-purchased-every-minute-in-the-united-states/
By Admin, Political Velcraft, Sept 24, 2014
USA —
(Ammoland.com)
Somewhere, everyday in the USA, 2100+ people use a gun for self defense,
to stop a crime or save the lives of themselves or their family.
“We believe that the American public deserve to
understand that on the average, guns save 2,191 lives and are used to
thwart crimes every day,” says Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment
Foundation
Most times you won’t see these tales on the news as it does not fit the
main stream media’s story line of “Guns and Gun Owners are Bad“.
This is just one of those stories;
A man armed with a gun entered Burt’s Meat Market in Houston, Texas
and demanded money from the teenage clerk on duty. When the clerk didn’t
produce the money fast enough, the criminal fired a shot.
Store manager J.L. Nickel, who was in a nearby office, became aware
of the robbery, retrieved a gun and fired at the robber. One of Nickel’s
shots struck the thief, prompting him to flee.
(KPRC, Houston, Texas, 09/20/14).
About the Guns Save Lives Series:
Every few days AmmoLand Shooting Sports News will be featuring a new
report of stories involving self defense with a hand gun. Be sure and
share, like and Tweet these posts and help spread the truth that
“Guns Save Lives”.
See more at
http://www.AmmoLand.com (
http://tiny.cc/s6ef2w )
Follow us:
@Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Ammoland
Bill
Of Rights Are Unalienable Rights ‘ Natural Rights’ they are NOT
Inalienable Rights. Inalienable Rights are ‘government granted’ a legal
ease trapping in the court system.
Know Your Rights Natural vs granted civil.
Your Bill Of Rights Which Is The Predecessor/Foundation For The U.S. Constitution, Are Unalienable Rights, They Are NOT Inalienable Rights.
The Un and the In make all the difference in the world. Unalienable are from God ‘Natural’ and are permanently sovereign, they cannot be taken away. Inalienable are from governments ‘Law’ which are voted upon. Don’t let slick willie attorneys fool you otherwise.
Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun
control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists,
activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty
to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.
Gun Facts has 112 pages of information. Divided into chapters based
on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing,
firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID ABOUT GUNS
ever wonder what the second amendment really means?
Militias. Distrust of government. Abuse of power. The right to bear
arms. Not a day passed without a passionate article or an editorial on
the role of guns in American life.
The year was 1775. More than 200 years later, the seminal debate
undertaken as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison formulated
the laws of the land still echoes. Is the Michigan Militia an aberration
or the Constitution in action?
Is Gordon Liddy a dangerous demagogue or a devoted patriot? What
exactly did the founding fathers mean when they penned the Second
Amendment?
No sampler can do justice to the debate, but we hope the following
scrapbook helps shed light on the relation between arms and liberty. Our
sources were Alexander Hamilton, Madison and John Jay’s Federalist,
“That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right,” by
Stephen Halbrook,
“The Road to the Bill of Rights,” by Craig Smith, and a
collection of quotes compiled by Charles Curley.
- Minute Men Turning Back British Banking Forces.
TO TAKE ARMS AGAINST THE BRITISH
From “A Journal of the Times,” calling the citizens of Boston to arm themselves in response to British abuses of power, 1769:
“Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military
conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of
such nature and have been carried to so great lengths as must serve
fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon the
inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a
measure as prudent as it was legal.
It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves,
confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own
defense, and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when
the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the
violence of oppression.”
Then America Was Born
ASSAULT RIFLES, COLONIAL STYLE
George Mason’s Fairfax County Militia Plan, 1775:
“And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage
to keep a good firelock in proper order, & to furnish ourselves as
soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder,
four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, & a pair of bullet moulds,
with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls.”
GIVE ME FLINTLOCKS OR GIVE ME DEATH
Patrick Henry, 1775:
“They tell us that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an
adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are
totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every
house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are
invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”
Thomas Paine
THOUGHTS ON DEFENSIVE WAR
Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on
the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.
The balance of power is the scale of peace.
The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of
arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not
lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world
deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the
strong.”
SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION
Samuel Adams:
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right
to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the
right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
John Adams:
“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual
discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or
private self-defense.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government.”
Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands.”
WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY AND HE IS US
Patrick Henry Moving America To Raise Arms Against The British Rothschild Banking System!
Patrick Henry:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone
who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The
great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a
gun.”
TREAD LIGHTLY
Thomas Jefferson’s advice to his 15-year-old nephew:
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played
with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and
stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant
companion of your walks.”
Noah Webster, 1787:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as
they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular
troops.”
ON THE ROLE OF A MILITIA
James Madison, “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared,” 46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29, 1788:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which
the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple
government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms
of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear,
the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able
to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional
advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could
collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers
appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to
them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance
that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned
in spite of the legions which surround it.”
Alexander Hamilton, “Concerning the Militia,” 29 Federalist Daily Advertiser, January 10, 1788:
“There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of
danger to liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to
treat it with gravity or raillery. Where, in the name of common sense,
are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our
neighbors, our fellow citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from
men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who
participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and
interests?
What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in
the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its
services when necessary, while the particular states are to have the
sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible
seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable
establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the
officers being in the appointment of the states ought at once to
extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always
secure to them a preponderating infiuence over the militia.”
Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788:
“Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves
and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is
essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be
taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Tench Coxe, writing as “the Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:
“The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the
hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the
powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16
to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed
to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous
and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that
we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no
power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible
implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal
or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in
the hands of the people.”
The United Sovereign States ~ States Must Quickly Disengaged From Subsidizing The Camps.
ANTECEDENTS
Connecticut gun code of 1650:
“All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in
continual readiness a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service.”
Article 3 of the West Virginia state constitution:
“A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of
self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational
use.”
Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason:
“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free
state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as
dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be
under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
A proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, as passed by the Pennsylvania legislature:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose
of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or
any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public
injury from individuals.”
ROUGH DRAFT
An amendment to the Constitution, proposed by James Madison:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best
security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
THE FINAL DRAFT
The Second Amendment, as passed September 25, 1789:
“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.”
Come And Take Them
WHAT BECOMES A LEGEND MOST
George Washington’s address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They
are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under
independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens’
firearms are indelibly related.
From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events,
occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and
happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner
of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them
by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands.
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains
evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When
firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.”
Each chapter lists common gun control myths, then lists a number of
documented and cited facts (with nearly 500 detailed footnotes). Thus
when a neighbor, editor or politician repeats some sound bite about
firearm control policy, you can quickly find that myth then rebuke
with real information.
What Adolph Hitler Said:
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate,
continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and
unrealistic.”
Forget everything that you’ve been told about guns.
Ignore the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Disregard all of the dramatic press reports. Regardless of how good the arguments on either side of this issue may seem to their proponents, most of them will have absolutely no effect upon their detractors. That is because they do not answer the single most important question to all involved.
What About ME?
What about ME? What about MY personal safety? What about MY children? What about MY family?
Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, it all comes down to
the question of your own personal safety and that of your loved ones.
Any argument that does not address this question will fall on deaf ears.
With that in mind, let me demonstrate conclusively
that any restriction placed upon gun ownership is not only contrary to
your best interest, but does in fact, increase the likelihood that you
or a loved one will become the victim of a violent crime.
The Criminologists’ Story
The most revealing fact in the gun-control
controversy is that among all of the criminologists who have ever
changed their opinion on gun control, EVERY LAST ONE has moved from a position supporting gun control to the side skeptical of gun control and not the other way around… NOT EVEN ONE! Think about the significance of that one simple fact.
Criminologists are the experts who study crime,
criminals and their motivation. Their entire career centers around the
collection and analysis of statistics surrounding crime and the tools of
crime. These are the people who make it their business to know and
understand how, when, where, why and by whom guns (or any weapon, for
that matter) are used. And, like anyone in any job, they learn more as
they grow in the job. So, if the evidence were there to support gun
control, wouldn’t you expect that at least a few Criminologists would
have switched from opposing gun control to supporting it?
Think about it…
