Friday, July 29, 2011

Obama Assaults Gun Freedoms

Obama Assaults Gun Freedoms
Mainstream media ignores the important stories, hypes nonsense
by Kathryn M. DeLong

Obama may spread his wings, but he is hostile to Americans bearing arms.

The United States’ economic woes have taken the forefront in the mainstream media, overshadowing foreign affairs and social issues back home. The onslaught of media coverage over the debt crisis has pushed matters of civil liberties to the back of the minds of many Americans.

If President Obama somehow manages to pull our nation out of economic despair, the Democratic Party will inevitability use this accomplishment as the crux to his reelection campaign. Leftists will misleadingly market Obama as the man who saved the U.S. economy. However, there are other substantial issues that the Democrats will surely fail to evoke – like the Obama administration’s assault on the 2nd amendment.

Obama has tried to promote himself as someone who respects the 2nd amendment, but his actions lead us to believe otherwise. Obama’s voting record, prior to assuming the presidency, exposes him as a typical, anti-gun left-winger.

In 2000, then a member of the Illinois State Senate, Obama cosponsored a bill that would limit handgun purchases to one per month. Ultimately, the bill did not pass.

In 2004, Obama voted against a bill – not once, but twice – in the Illinois Senate that would have granted citizens more legal freedom in using firearms as a means of self-defense during home invasions.

Furthermore, in 2007, during the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, Obama commented that in a seven-month period, 34 public school students in Chicago had been gunned down and killed. He went on to say that, in order to amend the situation, current gun laws must be enforced. I think this statement speaks for itself.

Since we live in a world where the mainstream media dictates what issues are most important, the Obama administration’s anti-gun stance has, for the most part, gone under the radar.

Recently, the Murdoch hacking scandal has received a great deal of media attention. In fact, CNN and Fox News both streamed the entirety of the Murdochs’ testimonies in British Parliament – essentially uninterrupted and commercial-free. It only makes sense that if the American media is this obsessed with an affair occurring overseas, they should raise the same level of awareness regarding events that are taking place in our own country. Paradoxically, this is not the case. For example, coverage of Project Gunrunner in the mainstream media has been virtually nonexistent.

It simply does not make sense that American cable news stations broadcasted the Murdoch testimonies for an entire day, but ignored the U.S. congressional hearing on Operation Fast and Furious.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have both claimed that they had no prior knowledge of the corruption behind Operation Fast and Furious, headed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. However, it has come to light that federal stimulus dollars actually funded the gun trafficking scheme gone wrong, rendering it completely unacceptable for the feds to feign ignorance.

Now, rather than holding a federal bureaucracy accountable for its lack of responsibility and morality, the Obama administration is using the incident to promote harsher gun control policies. This, by itself, is enough proof that Obama had knowledge of BATFE’s plans before they were carried out. That is to say, the reason for carrying out Operation Fast and Furious was to provide the feds with some sort of twisted justification for restricting gun rights. Fortunately, those who have informed themselves on this controversy are able to see past the government’s attempt to deceive the public.

The mainstream media transformed the Casey Anthony trial into a public phenomenon, but refuses to mention the United Nation’s radical and dangerous Agenda 21, which was first released in 1992. The UN promotes Agenda 21 as an international charter for “sustainable development”. However, if this plan is implemented in full, some have speculated that state sovereignty will ultimately cease to exist.

This brings us to the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. It seems as though, if enacted, this international treaty would work to advance the goals of Agenda 21. Under the Small Arms Treaty, which the Obama administration has publicly voiced its support for, 2nd amendment rights would be severely curbed. The U.N. claims that, in order to prevent armed conflicts, national governments must work in concert to decrease the number of guns worldwide. Ultimately, this would lead to confiscation of firearms – a complete breach of American civil liberties.

The media’s refusal to cover these issues forces individuals to investigate them on their own. The Obama administration has loads of dirty laundry that will never surface within the narrow scope of the mainstream media. An uninformed public is a potentially dangerous public, especially in regards to civil liberties.

The issues that the mainstream media seems to be most avoidant of are probably those that we should be most concerned about. The best defense is accompanied by information and undisputed facts.

Gun rights and what we have to lose

The Texas woman in the video is worth watching/hearing. I don't know how she kept her composure retelling her story. Her perspective and attitude impressed me. Her final words were right on, in my opinion.


How sad this Texas girl had the encroachment on her second amendment rights so graphically illustrated. Watch the honorable senator from New York getting a little uncomfortable in his chair.

The gun banners are absolutely speechless as this little Texas gal chews 'em up and spits em out. She knows what the 2nd amendment is really all about.

Here's a video you won't forget anytime soon!! She didn't cry, although she came close, and she gave those around her a reality check they dearly needed.........

Watch it....... You'll be glad you did.

It's closer to reality than we think!

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,” We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the on sequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?


" does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

To read another article on this subject, click here.

No comments: