Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’

page: 1
14

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I recently listened to this podcast for American Free Press and wanted to share this article with the ATS community.

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


Mack is a staunch supporter of the U.S. Constitution and of the 2nd Amendment but he is also very outspoken about the corruption of our politicians and government.

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.”


I say Mack is right on in his assessment of how our government tries to convince the brainwashed masses that it can be done because government is so much smarter and efficient than anyone else and how they have all the answers and knows what's best.

Mack also states how government uses the media to brainwash the masses into believing their rhetoric.

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.”


The purpose of government is to ensure the rights of the people are protected, not to regulate our rights. I agree 100% with everything Mack said in his interview and it's great to see a person in his position speaking out against the tyranny of our governments agenda, its too bad we will never see him in MSM.

American Free Press Interview
edit on 29/8/12 by masqua because: Replaced 'All Caps' in title




posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, which is the rights of the individuals. Congress was well aware that the Right to Bear Arms was integral to the individual and keeping tryrany at bay. Of course it's against the law to attempt to regulate this amendment. It requires ratifcation.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I have a strange question for people about gun control. It seems most people who say its there right to have a gun and carry a gun. They say there should be no laws that limit the guns they have or what kind they can have. They throw up there military experience as a reason they know gun laws should not be enacted. But when they were in the military and returned home to the states the first thing the military did was take their guns and say you do not need them anymore your in a civilized place and not under threat. This is what happened when the Fort Hood shooter started shooting. Nobody had guns to defend themselves. The military guys with no guns on base at home. Has anybody ever complained that they should have the right to run around base with guns? I have not heard about it if they did.

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)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

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.


I agree with you 100%. As Jefferson said, "The most egregious reason for the people to bear arms is, as a last resort to defend themselves from tyranny in government". Throughout the course of human history when a population became incapable of defending themselves from their government it very quickly turned into a tyrannical and oppressive government. Just as Sheriff Mack stated in his interview, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, even Mao and Stalin all enacted gun control and that was soon followed by total confiscation of firearms. It was also soon followed by tyranny, oppression, and the murder of countless millions by their governments.

Our founding fathers were well aware of the dangers that a defenseless citizenry faced from their government, thatis why they gave us our Bill of Rights and incorporated the 2nd Amendment into those rights, because the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment its written on if the citizens have no way of enforcing those rights.

"History has shewn that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have slowly, and by perverse means transformed it into tyranny"~Thomas Jefferson

Personally I believe that the assault weapons bans as well as the attacks on semi auto hunting rifles is done because TPTB don't want us as well armed as the military. I am a former Naval Special Warfare Operator and I know that in proficient hands your average model 700 Remington or Savage model 10 in 308, 30-06, or 300 win mag is deadly out to 1000+ meters, not to mention they will penetrate even the best body armor. Same goes for your semi auto rifles, with the exception of full auto capabilities and extended magazines, which many of which can be modified, they are extremely accurate and deadly. Assault rifles, well TPTB damn sure don't want civilians armed up with M4's, AR's, Sig 516 & 517's, M21's and M14's cause they are already outnumbered as it is, they damn sure don't want to be outgunned.

It says in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but these 3 rights aren't the only unalienable rights we have. Every right within the Bill of Rights is an unalienable right because the rights within the Bill of Rights are necessary in order for us to achieve and secure life, liberty, and happiness. When the government restricts any of the Bill of Rights they are restricting our right to life, liberty, and happiness.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Great read and I agree 100%. See avatar for my views on this subject. Sorry for the oneliner mods.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
Great read and I agree 100%. See avatar for my views on this subject. Sorry for the oneliner mods.


My only hope is that it's a G27 and not a G26 in your skeletal hand! Haha...great avatar pic! I feel the same way.
I have a Glock 19 and Glock 26, but traded the G26 in for a Walther PPS Slim Line .40 caliber.

We have to make our argument that the Bill of Rights were rights designed for the individual, not the masses. So the antagonist argument that the 2nd Amendment was written for militias and never meant for the individual is total bunk! The government knows it too. Any student of the Constitution knows it as well! Our government was a result of tyranny. They knew what they were doing when they placed arms in the Bill of Rights.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
What are you talking about? The reason is because the assault rifle you are assigned belongs to the United States Army. Not the soldier.

You will find that most retired soldiers have at least one handgun. It's our Right. IF your an American it's your's to.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Everybody is so worried about the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control I would point out that there is another provision of the Constitution that is completely ignored but makes Gun Control by states totally unconstitutional as well.

What is it. The commerce clause.

Article 1 section 8 para 3.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

10th Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to regulate interstate commerce is a federal power. State Gun Control regulates interstate commerce. Therefore Gun Control is violating the commerce clause. And your rights under the 10th amendment as well.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
After living for a year in the jungle, carrying a radio on my back , a Colt 1911 A-1 a Kabar knife and having to pick up a M-16 from a dead or wounded comrade to give the grunts a hand I'd say I have no interest in fire arms... I do see them as being a better investment than gold or other precious metals and it is nice to have fresh venison and some in the freezer but since I moved away from the big city to live in the woods I don't feel the need to constantly be armed with more than a walking stick... There are people I have known that own guns and carry them but aren't stable enough to be trusted with a walking stick or a lock blade knife... It used to be that the existing laws were enough but in recent years people have been desensitized to violence and to become paranoid by movies, newspaper articles, TV news reports and video games... There are too damned many people that are walking around hoping that someone will give them justification to use their gun so they can have the experience of killing another human being... It scares the hell out of me that there are law enforcement personnel that are of this ilk... I have ideas as to why the US allows it's citizens to own guns and it has nothing to do with Constitutional Rights... Sooner or later law enforcement will be as well armed as the military and there will be many more of them than there now is... What do you think is going to happen when this large force is ordered to seize all civilian firearms and a number of folks decide they don't want to give them up... Who do you think is going to take possession of everything these people own when they are hauled off to where ever they are taken or killed because they were slow about turning over their guns.... Look at how many people are killed by cops just because they had a gun in their possession.... It is said that there is a huge depression when the financial bubble burst in 2013 that will have everything priced 10 times higher than it is now... Food prices have been climbing and climatic conditions are going to have an impact on farming and ranching.. Jobs will be scarce and government checks to Social Security, Veteran benefits, and welfare will be cut drastically.... How will owning guns cause anything but trouble in such a situation?? Once the nuts start robbing and killing to take what they don't have or need it's going to be bad for all but the ultra rich or people that began preparing for such a thing..



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


Glock is my hand gun of choice. Utterly reliable gun, I have never had a jam up or mis-fire. Model 22 is what I carry on my person 40 cal, I have the best controll, wife carries a G17 she's pretty wicked with it too. Tighter groups than mine. 2nd Amendment is for the people to prevent a Government from going all Gestapo the way it is now.

Do you think ir will ever come to them taking our guns away? I myself feel it's an impossible task for any agency. They will more so attack getting permits and just overall make it even more difficult to legally purchase firearms & ammo. You all have a good labor day weekend, and keep them groups tight when your at the range. GUN CONTROLL. USE BOTH HANDS= TIGHTER GROUPS MORE ROUNDS ON TARGET. Now that's gun controll!!



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

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)


After the Fort Hood shooting there was quite a bit of talk about how foolish it is to disarm the soldiers at base.

And in case you havent noticed the government doesnt trust the soldiers anymore. Veterans are being locked up in psych wards for no reason whatsoever and troops in warzones are being disarmed when politicians come to speak.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
NO WORRIES ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, MATES
or sorry about the yelling....I'm in Texas and you can rest assured....everyone is alerted and talking....making plans about this...especially the younger generation, I'm so proud of them ya know, we're all about hog hunting and well....just the country boys in the 7 counties surrounding Dallas....will be sufficient ....to reitterate, these boys will swarm if challenged we have a chain of stores here statewide, and the name of it is......get this....."CHEAPER THAN DIRT GUNS" and the parking lot is big...and sometimes full.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 


Mack is another idiot who has no idea what he's talking about. The Hitler - Gun Control angle has been debunked here - www.salon.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


I was armed 24/7 during my entire time in the military, overseas and State-side. Of course being Military Police I was never without a firearm.

As for the former Sheriff, he is another example of why I reside in AZ.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 



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.”

mobile.wnd.com...

This, I think, is how its going to wash out.

There are 3,080 sheriffs in the US. Find yours:
www.sheriffs.org...





top topics
 
14

log in

join