The Next Step In Domestic Disarmament

Federal bureaucrats and elected officials have been searching for new and agressive ways to disarm the American people since the days of the [first]Clinton administration. During the winter month of Feburary (2007) U.S. Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) introduced HR 1022 titled, Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. As a renewed effort to push the gun control and disarmament agenda, this bill presents the average citizen with new food for thought.

In today's highly charged political environment, Federal officials at all levels stress compliance and conformity in the face of trans-national terrorism. Americans are no longer encouraged to be observant and brave. We're told to be non-confrontational while we wait for official help from sanctioned government agencies.

In an effort to make you aware of what's coming, I'd like to show you a little history, and the actual text of the new and...improved...assault weapons ban. I'll be using publicly available sources for the brief history lesson, which will give you a chance to do your own back tracking. Don't take my work for what you see here. Do you own homework, and make up your own mind.

ORIGINS OF THE DOMESTIC DISARMAMENT POLICY

Essay by Justin Oldham
Sept. 10, 2005
Original Source

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that we've just had one more peek at our future. The following slice from the New York Times could have been part of the window dressing for my novel, but it wasn't. This was real.

New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes New York Times, September 8, by ALEX BERENSON and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

"Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here."

"No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said."

"But that order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons."

Federal disaster management policy should cover a lot of things. Evacuation, rescue, and re- settlement are all good things. These are Humanitarian responsibilities that any honest government should live up to. As Federal, State, and Local governments struggle to bear these honorable burdens, they should not try to lighten their loads by putting down their Constitutional obligations.

[My published work] makes the case that the Federal government will deliberately capitalize on moments of great national pain and chaos to circumvent or suspend the Constitution. The situation described in the above New York Times article appears to be harmless. 50 years ago, it might have been. In today's highly charged political environment, this isn't just a "situation " It's a legal precedent waiting to happen.

As the article says, legally registered firearms are being confiscated from private citizens while heavily armed private security forces are on patrol. These "rented cops" have certificates, licenses, and permits issued by Federal, State, and local authorities. The career politicians who made it possible for local police whom you know and trust to disarm you...have already decided what the outcome of this issue will be at the Federal level. With or without legal challenge, they've just established an official policy of domestic disarmament.


THE NEXT STEP IN DOMESTIC DISARMAMENT

Essay by Justin Oldham
Nov. 9, 2005
Original Source

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that there really is a movement under way to disarm the American public. Pro-Federalist forces have been looking for a way to break the second amendment since the 1970's. After three and a half decades of struggle at the highest levels, they are now switching tactics.

Realizing that political action at the Federal level garners too much attention from the incident- hungry national media, party bosses and career politicians in the lower levels of government are doing what their D.C. superiors couldn't. They're creating a trend that will see you volunteering to give up your guns by the end of this decade.

These are precisely the tactics I wrote about. [My published work] makes the case that the 'trend' toward big government is actually a series of carefully exploited moments in time that are intended to make YOU give up what THEY couldn't take lawful action. Since the mid-1990's, career politicians at the Federal level have begun to realize that their relatively small numbers make them easy to observe and catch when they do something wrong.

There are less than 1,000 elected officials at the Federal level. That number swells to well over 70,000 at the State and Local levels. That's a lot of people to keep track of. So much so, that State and Local media outlets don't even try. This makes back-channel deals in your home town more than possible. It makes them a sure thing.

November 8 [2005] saw the voters in San Francisco approve anti-gun legislation that bans the making, selling, and owning of most guns illegal inside city limits.

Ask any lawyer, and they'll tell you that case law matters. Legal precedent makes almost anything possible. Local laws becomes the basis for State laws, if they withstand court challenges. State laws become the basis for...Federal laws...if they stand up to challenge in court. Any judge who chooses to "legislate from the bench" can strike down a legal challenge. They often do this, knowing that the 'approved' precedent will find its way in to the legal code. In many cases, this is how Federal law has over-ruled State law.

The bottom-up approach to disarmament is only made possible when career politicians take advantage of uninformed citizens and low voter turnout. In my home town, 25% of the people vote. When the special interest groups mobilize, they can vote down any measure they don't like. This is how our social and political elites now plan to take your guns. They'll out-vote you. The test case in San Francisco, if it survives legal challenge, will give them all the courtroom cover they need. Use your voice while you still have it. Vote wisely.


I bring these essays to your attention to provide a modern context for this very old issue.

"The Gun Control Timeline" is taken from the following source.
usgovinfo.about.com...

I present it here for your convenience. This resource contains many hyperlinks, which you can use as you see fit by going to the usgovinfo.about.com web site.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun Control Timeline
Last Updated: 09/26/99

When did this whole gun control debate start?

It could have started shortly after November 22, 1963 when evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy increased public awareness to the relative lack of control over the sale and possession of firearms in America. Indeed, until 1968, handguns, rifles, shotguns, and ammunition were commonly sold over-the-counter and through mail-order catalogs and magazines to just about any adult anywhere in the nation.

However, America's history of regulating private ownership of firearms goes back much farther. In fact, all the way back to...

1791
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment -- "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." gains final ratification.

1837
Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.

1865
In a reaction to emancipation, several southern states adopt "black codes" which, among other things, forbid black persons from possessing firearms.

1871
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians' marksmanship in preparation for war.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With this historical overview at your disposal for easy research, I'd like to show you what the new gun control legislation looks like. Please scroll down to the next post in this thread.



[edit on 22-8-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

As you can see from the historical overview of legislation presented in the previous post, Federal authorities have had good intentions mixed in with their political maneuvers. For the purposes of further discussion, I'd like to show you what they plan to do next, in their own words. In the weeks and months ahead, I hope to have a meaningful discussion about what you find in the text of this law.

Official Source

110th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 1022

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

February 13, 2007

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Reinstatement of Provisions Partially Repealed- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;'; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:

`(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or'.


SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

`(K) A conversion kit.

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.

`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

`(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.

`(39) Fixed Magazine- The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.

`(40) Folding or Telescoping Stock- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.

`(41) Forward Grip- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.

`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

`(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'.


SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.

Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and

(2) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.


SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.

Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--

`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;

`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(C) is an antique firearm.'.


SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--

`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or

`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

`(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit the record to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.'.


SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:

`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) Certification Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.


SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.

Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'; and

(2) in paragraph (2)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.


SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) In General- Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)' and inserting `(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)';

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `(2) Paragraph (1)' and inserting `(B) Subparagraph (A)'; and

(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:

`(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's worth mentioning that a lot of give-and-take goes on while a bill is in committee. What you see here is the item in its original and unchanged form. It's possible that what you read here will change as Republicans and Democrats alike try to keep or kill this piece of legislation.

With that in mind, please take note of just how comprehensive this bill is. Weapons with a 5 shot capacity or greater seem to be its targets. Certain items (language) buried in the finer details would suggest that there is more to come...if they can get this item to the desk of President Hillary Clinton for signing.

Remember that its not unusual for some bills to be in committee for YEARS. Just because an item is "started" in one Congress doesn't mean it can't be completed by the next. As conspiracies go, this one is real and its happening right in front of you.

Are these politicians stupid!? Why are they begging for an armed revolution in this country? The last Assualt Weapons Ban did NOTHING to reduce gun violence in the US. The expiration of the ban has NOT increased gun violence. This is a stupid waste of tax dollars!

Passing this law would make just about every gun I own illegal and I have NO criminal record - so why should I be punished!? The criminals will always have weapons that outgun the police - how about enforcing EXISTING gun laws first and seeing what that can do?

They can take my guns from my cold, dead hands and not a moment sooner! And they better be aware, I'm taking a truck load of them with me when I go!

Originally posted by kozmo
Are these politicians stupid!? Why are they begging for an armed revolution in this country? The last Assualt Weapons Ban did NOTHING to reduce gun violence in the US. The expiration of the ban has NOT increased gun violence. This is a stupid waste of tax dollars!

There's an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to date which suggests that the Brady Bill (5 day waiting period on all handgun purchases) and the assault weapons ban have had negligable effects. The simple fact of the matter is that firearms proliferation increased because criminals felt "motivated" to get guns when it was made harder for honest people to get them.

Originally posted by kozmo
Passing this law would make just about every gun I own illegal and I have NO criminal record - so why should I be punished!? The criminals will always have weapons that outgun the police - how about enforcing EXISTING gun laws first and seeing what that can do?

I made this point in my published work. The blanket ban which Representative McCarthy suggests is in and of itself too extreme to be rational, much less effective. the terrible truth is that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies don't uphold the gun control measures that are on the books now.

Originally posted by kozmo
They can take my guns from my cold, dead hands and not a moment sooner! And they better be aware, I'm taking a truck load of them with me when I go!

As conspiracies go, this one is a whopper. Unfortunately for us, we've reached that point in the decline of our society where very little stands between us and the people in power. It can be argued that the next President...whoever that is...could very well be the one that ingites domestic civil unrest on a large scale. that's why I wanted to bring this to your attention, so that you could see if for yourself and in their own words.

The whole issue of "Gun Control" is in general misunderstood. For example, many Americans think the Assult Weapons Ban is about getting fully automatic weapons off the street. what they don't realize however is that Automatic weapons were already banned by the 1932 Machine Gun Act

The catch is that it's too easy to convince people that the law needs to be changed when they aren't aware of what it sais!

Tim

[edit on 3/28/2007 by Ghost01]

What would you suggest that pro-gun people do about this deception?

Hmm,

Well clearly more people need to be informed about what US Laws really say. The only way to fight misinformation is with Correct Information.

As for how do we get the facts out to people, I haven't figured that out yet. I learned of the 1932 Machine Gun act from a good friend who's an NRA member. If it hadn't been for a debate over the difference between military and civilian weapons, I would never have known.

Tim

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
What would you suggest that pro-gun people do about this deception?

Join the NRA! 35$/year is a small price to pay for your liberty.

Plus, write letters to your congress critter and to the news papers.

Freedom ain't free, you must work at it.

Roper

Originally posted by Ghost01
As for how do we get the facts out to people, I haven't figured that out yet. I learned of the 1932 Machine Gun act from a good friend who's an NRA member. If it hadn't been for a debate over the difference between military and civilian weapons, I would never have known.

That's why I started this discussion. You're not alone. There are a lot of people out there who don't know that the problem exists, or how bad it really is. That's one of the reasons why I put so much information in this thread. I wanted you to see just what you're up against.

As roper says, you've got the option to join groups like the NRA. You can write letters. You could even write your own book, much like I did. There are plenty of "delivery systems" for the pro gun message. Until more people start to use them, this real world conspiracy to disarm you will continue.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by Justin Oldham]

'Freedom ain't free, you gotta pay!" Our founding fathers paid and generations after that have paid; in labor, in lives, in currency etc...

I am a life member of the NRA and a very ardent gun-rights proponent. We NEED to get the word out there. Justin, you seem to have a magnificent grasp of this issue coupled with an arsenal of information - why not create an editorial and send it to all of the major newspapers? Education is our only true hope!

Originally posted by kozmo
Justin, you seem to have a magnificent grasp of this issue coupled with an arsenal of information - why not create an editorial and send it to all of the major newspapers? Education is our only true hope!

Actually, I have done what you suggest. The published material that I refer to (see the Tinwiki link in my sig) carries a strong pro-gun message. I have also show-cased most of the pro-gun essays that I've posted in my blog and on the net.

The fact of the matter is that YOU can do everything that I've done. I'm just one person with a lot of Google hits. I'm not ashamed of my success to date, but I haven't done as much as I plan to in the future. The longest journey starts with the first step.

As more people see my work, they'll talk about it. Sad to say, but that's a major component of success for any author, essayist, or advocate. Other people have to talk about you in order for you to be mo' successful. In this case, more people need to talk about this issue. I can make 'em talk about it each time some body reads my stuff, or posts a review of my stuff, but I can't make anyone "find me."

I encourage anyone who is interested in this discussion to post here. Get used to talking about this issue here, then go out on your own. Write your own stuff and talk about it. If there are enough of us talking about this...we will not be easily ignored. How's that for a conspiracy buster?

[edit on 28-3-2007 by Justin Oldham]

I forgot to add,"Take someone shooting". Find someone who would like to learn and get'em started. I've got two girls into shooting.

Roper

You have voted Justin Oldham for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Congrats Justin... you always have amazing research, thoroughly thought out ideas and you convey yourself well. keep it up

Thanks very much for the kind words. In many cses, which include the darker and more conspiratorial things, the facts speak for themselves. I find that by presenting my opinions AND my sources, I can win people over to my side of an argument by letting them see what I saw. This is a serious issue, and I wish more people would talk about it.

We, as citizens, are free to dislike guns for any reason that we please. There is no law or social mandate that says you absolutely must own a gun. In a just society, you can go out of your way to never own a gun. As long as the option to get and keep guns remains at your disposal, you should never have to fear your government.

When you lose the right to have or to not have, you're in trouble. "Real" conspiracy takes place when people you'll never meet want to take choices away from you. This is particularly true when it comes to firearms. Your grandfather's rifle is SUPPOSED to stay in your closet and never be needed. The handgun you have somewhere in your house should never be needed. When the leaders of your nation have your best interests in mind, they won't spend any of their time trying to figure out how to seperate you from your guns.

It says a lot that our leaders want to seperate us from the one and only technological means that would allow us to oppose them. .38's don't do much agaisnt tanks, but they do allow even the smallest and weakest of Americans to fight back. It's been said that all politics is local. All Tyranny is...human. Some times, the only way to stop a life-taker is to give them a taste of their own medicine. Our goal, as good citizens, should be to make that sure that it never comes to that.

We can do this by preserving our choices.

You have voted Justin Oldham for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Justin, as always I enjoy reading your work. I appreciate the time that you put into putting this information out there for people to read (and hopefully understand).

I am a stanch supporter of the Second Amendment, heart and soul. I just wish "all" American citizens would realize that this Amendment is the one that protects their right to voice their concerns about it. I understand that there are some people that don't like guns, but they've got to look past personal opinion and realize that this is something that is the foundation of their Constitutional Rights. Without the Second Amendment, how shall we (or they, or anyone) protect the other rights, freedoms, and liberties that we all share?

That is in no way, shape, form, or fashion.. an opinion.. that is a fact.


Keep up the great work!

Each time you see a thread like this, flag it. It's just one small thing you can do to make sure that people see topics like this.

Justin even though we have not held a conversation
in the past, I enjoy reading your posts on this forum.

It seems like as I sit here and read posts and talk to
co workers and friends in my everyday life, the majority
of what i hear is that people are awake and alert to
what is happening with the U.S. but do not know as
an individual person how to get involved and start to
make changes for the better.

Example.... the most widely given advice to someone
who would not be satisfied with current politics would
be to exercise the right to vote....
Even though that would be the logical step to make
any changes in our government, the reality is that
the majority of citizens have given up hope on voting
due to corrupt officials, lies in government, or just
hijacking and stealing of elections altogether.

And to get a movement or organization started with
a group of citizens that are like-minded requires capital
that no one these days has without a very generous
backing of the organization.
And will that organization be taken seriously and grow
in support ?

Our government has become a den of thieves and our
citizens have become lost.
And I am sure that there are not many that would
disagree with my feelings.
I also feel that the ONLY WAY we will save our Constitution
and freedoms now would be to stick to and enforce the idea
I came up with in this previous post of mine.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

What would be the penalty of law for breaking the oath of
office every politician takes when sworn in, from the President
down to your local mayor and county sheriff ?

Can they be removed from office for breaking the oath
they took to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION ?

Originally posted by Patriot36
Justin even though we have not held a conversation
in the past, I enjoy reading your posts on this forum.

Thanks very much for the kind words. Citizenship is all about responsibility. Anyone with a pulse can do what I have done. As you can see for yourself, there aren't many people with the nerve to step and say these things. As conspiracies go, the push to disarm you is about as real as any conspiracy could get.

Originally posted by Patriot36
It seems like as I sit here and read posts and talk to
co workers and friends in my everyday life, the majority
of what i hear is that people are awake and alert to
what is happening with the U.S. but do not know as
an individual person how to get involved and start to
make changes for the better.

Every single step I've taken to get to where I am today can be taken by any other citizen who is willing to make the effort. Long before I had the nerve to publish, or post an essay, I was just another American. I saw what everyone else can see. The difference between me and the next guy is that...I took action.

I've made the same mistakes you'd make if you decided to be an activist. None of us are perfect. What you see here in this forum is the product of three years of hard marching.

Originally posted by Patriot36
Example.... the most widely given advice to someone
who would not be satisfied with current politics would
be to exercise the right to vote....
Even though that would be the logical step to make
any changes in our government, the reality is that
the majority of citizens have given up hope on voting
due to corrupt officials, lies in government, or just
hijacking and stealing of elections altogether.

Your vote is just one of many weapons at your disposal. All good conspirators know the first rule of deception. Pursuade your opposition that they have no choice but to go along with you. Distract them so they don't look too closely at their options.

You'd be surprised what one person can do. Take a minute to stroll around this forum and look at the threads. Everything with my name on it is here because I didi it. Look at all the material contributed by the other posters. It's here because THEY did it.

Originally posted by Patriot36
And to get a movement or organization started with
a group of citizens that are like-minded requires capital
that no one these days has without a very generous
backing of the organization.
And will that organization be taken seriously and grow
in support ?

Every single special interest group that you can think of stared iwth one man...or one woman...who did more than just think about it. The following I have today started years ago with just one person. Me. I've still got my detractors, but they are few when once upon a time they were many. "You can't do that. Nobody will ever pay attention to you." Were they right? Obviously, not.

Votes, letters, dollars, and volunteer time matter more than you think they do. On your own, with nobody looking, you might be the guy who writes "the thing" or does "the thing" that motivates millions. Too many people think I'm speical just because I'm here and they aren't. If you did what I do, then somebody else would follow your example Eventually, we'd be a large enough special interest in our own right that we couldn't be ignored. If you're looking for a conspiracy of your very own to start, this would be it.

Originally posted by Patriot36
Our government has become a den of thieves and our
citizens have become lost.
And I am sure that there are not many that would
disagree with my feelings.
I also feel that the ONLY WAY we will save our Constitution
and freedoms now would be to stick to and enforce the idea
I came up with in this previous post of mine.

You're on the right track. Now, all you've got to do is stick to it and remain active. The conspiracy to disarm you can't succeed so long as there is a corp of resistence. That resistence has to come in the form of rational civic action before we can grab our beans bullets to head for the hills. Use your voice, and your words...while you can.

There are any number of people on ATS who have read my published work. It's my hope that it motivates them to speak up and say what's on their mind in their own way. The politicians can't win so long as the Patriots remain on guard.

Justin. As others have said, I don't always agree with you, but do respect the brain behind the words. In this case I agree wholeheartedly. This movement to circumvent the second amendment seems to cross party lines all too often.

It's been said that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them...well the corallary to that is...I will be one of those outlaws. So will alot of my fellow citizens.

Originally posted by seagull
It's been said that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them...

Good Point Seagull! In one sentence, you have just explained why the official reason for gun control is nonsense. Gun control is a series of laws that in reality run contray to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in America. However, as you have highlighted in this statement, laws only keep honest people honest! People who are crooks, be definition, don't follow laws. Based on that logic, the use of laws to Prevent crime, is a lost cause.

All gun control is really doing is makeing it harder for law abiding people like you and I to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights. It does Nothing to counter the people it is supposed to be targeting. For a professional crook, gun laws are just another law they ignore and find ways to get around.

That is exactlly what Justin has been trying to inform everyone about. These laws don't do what their backers Claim, prevent crime. These laws are tying the hands of honest people and making the average person More vonerable. Once people begin to look through the hidden agendas of thoes in power, they will begin to see the real threats.

Justin, thank you for this wonderful topic! You are beginning to open people's eyes to the REAL threats we are facing. Knowlege truly is power, and you giving the power back to the average American!

This is what ATS is all about!

Tim