It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Former Arizona Sheriff Richard I. Mack, best known for his landmark victory lawsuit against the Clinton administration’s illegal application of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, more commonly referred to as the Brady Bill, is continuing his mission of educating Americans on gun control. And in his latest book, The MAGIC of Gun Control, Mack keeps no powder dry when discussing the legality of gun control in this country. Mack discusses his book in this eye-opening interview
A Constitutional scholar who has spent many decades studying the supreme law of our land, Mack sat down with AMERICAN FREE PRESS in an exclusive interview to discuss his book.
First he explained why he chose the title for his book with a word he coined, polimagician, which is a contraction of the words politician and magician.
“Polimagicians want you to believe that all the policies that history has made very clear to us that have been complete failures, that somehow in America today, they’re magic. They’ll work now, even though they’ve never worked before in world history,” explained Mack.
“Yeah, we know Hitler did it and it didn’t work, we know Mussolini did it, we know Castro did it, we know Pol Pot did it, we know all these horrible Communist dictators promoted gun control and it never worked, and we know it was racist and we know it was enslaving and we know it was destructive, but in America we can do it now because it’s magic.”
Mack points the finger at the mainstream media as being accomplices in making Americans, the audience, believe in the illusion.
“If you want magic,” said Mack, “go to Disneyland or go see David Copperfield. The magic of gun control is being promoted by the best illusionists in America.”
“There are over 24,000 gun control laws in America, and they’re all unconstitutional,” explained Mack.
Ironically, to make his point, Mack writes that “where guns are most prevalent, crime is at its lowest, and where gun control is most stringent, crime is at its highest.”
As he says, “You are either armed or you are a target.”
“Whether you like guns or not, whether you approve of guns or not, it’s really immaterial,” said Mack. “Gun control in America is against the law whether you like it or not.”
AFP asked if gun registration is something that the federal government is allowed to do.
Mack explained. “They have no regulatory authority over that which is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. None is offered, none is allowed. In fact, their only job is to make sure that the Bill of Rights are enforced and guaranteed; that’s the purpose of government. They cannot regulate how or when or what I do to keep and bear arms.”
Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I adamantly believe that our 2nd amendment right to bear arms has far reaching implications, and if you truly understand the purpose of the amendment, I think anyone will agree. This rule was established so that the government could not become more powerful than the citizenry, if it were to come down to a physical fight.
With that in mind, this amendment obviously was instituted to ensure that the people have the same firepower capabilities as the military/government, as that is the only way that the balance of power lies with both sides.
If you have a military that has weapons that cannot be matched by the public, then the 2nd amendment becomes absolutely pointless. It may as well not even be there. It seems many people do not realize this important point, and think that the government just wanted us to be able to have, I don't know, hunting rifles or something...Like for sport. But this is wrong. Our firepower is our insurance policy, but it seems that our policy is about to be cancelled altogether. But as I said, we the people have really been screwed over regarding this amendment, as we are not even allowed to have automatic weapons...Much less some of the other more sophisticated weaponry that would be used against us if the government wanted to take over the country and install a totalitarian state, or something similarly horrendous.
Originally posted by openyourmind1262
Great read and I agree 100%. See avatar for my views on this subject. Sorry for the oneliner mods.
Originally posted by JBA2848
Yes you should be able to have a gun to go hunting. You should be able to have a gun in your house for protection. But considering our military even takes guns from soldiers when they come home should we not limit what kind you have at home or how many?edit on 29-8-2012 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)
Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt shares (sheriff) Mack’s opinion.
“The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” Pratt told WND. “This is a defensible idea. He can deputize people to serve since they are the ones who voted for him to represent them. A lot of citizens would stand up for their Second Amendment rights if they were protected by the sheriff.”