It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


SPECIAL: The Truth About America's Domestic Disarmament Policy

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 01:25 PM
Email Newsletter Special Feature,
By Justin Oldham

Since 1994, politicians and bureaucrats within the Federal government have been implementing a clearly defined domestic disarmament policy that is designed to further the long term goal of centralized power. The overall trend in government growth at the Federal level has been a deliberately generated and sustained effort.

Incremental gun control has been implemented as an understated policy since the early 1970's. Public officials at all levels seem to be thinking ahead. their intent seems clear. To achieve total power, they must do more than legislate to their advantage. They need to make sure that the general public can't contested their actions by a successful insurrection or revolt. History shows us that a disarmed population makes for a docile and politically compliant society.

House Resolution 1022 was introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) in February of 2007. Titled, "Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007," this revised 1994 law would impose drastic restrictions on sales and ownership of all firearms, regardless of type. This bill and its aggressive language represent a renewed effort on the part of social and political forces that maneuver behind-the-scenes to promote central authority. It's the next step in their domestic disarmament policy.

Points of contention:

a. The specific makes and models prohibited by name under this law has been greatly expanded when compared to list of guns to be banned in the original 1994 law.

b. The revised law expands the definition of what it means for a weapon to be "semi-automatic." the end result seems to be an effort to include makes and models of guns that simple look like they might be military-grade weapons.

c. Under the terms of this law, all sales of large capacity magazines will be forbidden. Please note that the law defines a large capacity magazine as being anything that loads more than five rounds. Private sales of designated assault weapons are also prohibited. Conversion kits will be outlawed.

d. If you own a post 1994 ban firearm, you will not be allowed own a pistol grip or barrel shroud that would cause the weapon to resemble a known military variant.

e. Complicated language buried deep inside the bill authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to be "the decider" of what is and is not a semi-automatic or military-grade firearm. The insinuation is that because all guns have their basis in military design, all guns could fall under the A.G. authority to classify and ban.

In today's uncertain world, 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. The creeping conspiracy of growing government power attacks us from many different directions. Future Federal firearms policy seems destined to dispute and destroy our second amendment traditions whether we like it or not.

The strongest argument put forward by pro-Federalist gun control advocates rests on the assertion that the second amendment is a provisional law, subject to the interpretations of State laws which are in turn subordinate to Federal law. It's that subordination to Federal authority that gun control advocates rely on to push legislation like HR 1022.

Federalism has been alive and well in America since the Constitution was ratified (1789). for more than 230 years, many of our best thinkers have wrestled with the question of State's rights and the implied supremacy of the Federal government which some say can be found in the finer language of the Constitution itself.

Anti-Federalist forces have been fighting a losing battle on all fronts since the end of the Civil War (1861-1865). 21st Century political theorists are in general agreement that organized advocacy for small and efficient government is dead, as a form of national-level political ideology. The mid-term election results of 2006 lend credibility to the notion that Republicanism is no longer a force to be reckoned with.

Recent trends in legislation suggest that the conspirators who have sought to disarm the American people may now operate in the open as legitimate advocates for their point of view. As a political agenda item that makes the leap from plot to program, we should expect that HR 1022 will be the first of many pieces of legislation enacted to finalize the process of population control.

A brief examination of the "gun control time line," which is an online resource provided by the Federal government, will provide the casual researcher with a basis for understanding the scope, scale, and legislative rhythm that has been employed up 'til now. (see, additional news links) McCarthy's "new" assault weapons ban would build on every legal precedent that has come before it. As conspiracies go, this one is about as real as they come.

With anti-Federalist forces in disarray, there are no organized political groups or special interests in existence at this time which could or would offer serious resistance to this long-term policy. As an author, I find myself in slim company when it comes to stating a coherent opposition to this not-so-hidden agenda. Federal officials have a long-standing tradition of retaining political and legislative power. They very seldom if ever give back any of the authority they have taken.

House Resolution 1022 embodies every hostile legal maneuver that has come before it. It signals the start of a new phase in a much larger plan, and its long-term implications are not hard to guess at. This isn't plausible protection. It's premeditated, preemptive, and prescribed as "necessary" for the benefit of a chosen few.

Related Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
The Next Step In Domestic Disarmament
The Shape Of Things To Come
Centralized Power: The Federal Conspiracy

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 02:29 PM
Hey Justin,
I am originally from Oklahoma and live in NY now. Last time I was home for a visit I noticed that at the Mid-continent airport in Witchita there was a sign on the front door of a handgun with a slash through it, and I thought it was so odd, no one in their right mind would even THINK about bringing a gun into La Guardia or JFK, it seemed funny to me that you'd need to be reminded to leave your firearm in the car!!

NYC is approaching Police State status, it's really apparent here more so than "out yonder" I am seriously thinking of moving back home now as I have had enough of city life and it would be a nice change to live in an area where gun ownership is a matter of course instead of taboo. Also I want to be near my family, actually that's the main reason, not guns !!

Guns don't kill know the rest.

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 02:38 PM
I saw this Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) that introduced this bill on the news following the VT shooting.

She was asked about a few points of Resolution 1022 one being the proposed ban on features like Barrel shrouds. She was asked what a barrel shroud was and why they should be banned.

She tried to changed the subject and when asked again admitted she had no clue what a barrel shroud even was
so as you can imagine her arguement as to why they should be banned was somewhat weak.

Why do the people that introduce such bans seem to have the least knowledge on the subject?

BTW a barrel shroud is a covering for the barrel of a firearm that protects the user of the weapon from heat generated by the barrel. Guns get hot and it sucks if you touch the barrel by accident, I know firsthand.

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:50 PM
Where I live, a quickly changing rural setting, guns are more the rule than the exception. I've had numbers of friends and law enforcement personnel at my house shooting into the "berm" in my back yard.

There are enough of us around, even law enforcement types, who would be so against that sort of thing that, even if the law were passed, it wouldn't stop the trafficking in firearms out in the American Heartland. It would simply make outlaws out of law abiding citizens.

What is always interesting to me is the fact that most anti-gun folks haven't the foggiest idea of what they are actually against, and why. It has to be more than just a gut level control issue, but I sure can't figure it out. So, I am not terribly surprised about the above mentioned interview with Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). Lots of fire, and rhetoric, and very little substance other than we need to disarm the proletariat.

I also recommend to anyone who truly wants to keep a voice in this madness to join the GOA Gun Owners of America. I'm never sure if I can post a link to an organization or not here without getting demerits, so I won't, but they are imminently findable by simply typing in Gun Owners of America on your favorite Google browse.

GOA is a little less conservative than the National Rifle Association, and they keep a weather eye on all comings and goings of the anti-gun types. It is an investment well worth making if you are pro-firearm at all. You don't even have to do much investigating. They are set up so that members are sent emails regarding issues, and they include form letters that you don't even have to ammend if don't want to. They also are set up so that if you know your zip code, the letters and notes are sent to the correct "Public Servants".

Thank you very much for the heads up and all your efforts Justin. Count me as one who is on the ramparts with you.

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 06:29 PM
"History shows us that a disarmed population makes for a docile and politically compliant society."
What a load of tripe. Why do countries like the UK and Australia (and nearly every other country in the world) have fewer gun-related deaths than the US? - because they don't allow their citizens to go out and buy any damned weapon they like.
The US needs more stringent gun control legislation. Citizens of most states grow up with a 'gun' mentality, just as many grow up with 'religion'. Both are insidious and harmful to a peaceful way of life.
'Yes!' to gun control - but keep a careful watch on governments. - Oh, and PLEASE get rid of Bush.

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 06:30 PM
Thanks Justin!

I believe the US is in for a similiar situation to Canada, all of the provisions stated in your blog are parallel to what has already happened in Canada.

To allow Americans to accept this reality will take some drastic actions by the Government and their controllers to convince Americans that this would be an acceptable course of action.

It is my contention that Black Op's have helped influence some of the violent gun rampages that have occured in both the US and in Canada.

I believe the Black Op's fall within the jurisdiction of MK Ultra a long standing Black Operation experimenting with and implementing mind control.

This possibility is real and technology's do exist that exert powerful and effective RF and Microwave technology's influence on the mind, a little research into the subject for those unfamiliar with the topic will realize this in more reality than fiction.


Please look into this as it is real and present especially Haarp Justin in is right in your backyard.

Thanks for Speaking out and thinking independently of Government influence.


posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 07:09 PM
Thanks for posting that article and emailing it to us. I've been a supporter of the 2nd Amendment for my entire life.

Much of what needs to be said already has been said, however the purpose of the right to bear arms, according to the founding fathers, is to protect the individual citizen from the tyranny of its government.

It is vital that we safeguard our right to protect ourselves. Support organizations that work to protect your gun ownership rights. Write letters, etc., and try to make a difference.

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 07:14 PM
Sigung86 "most anti-gun folks haven't the foggiest idea of what they are actually against, and why" THIS IS SO TRUE! I've been saying this for some time now. Having grown up in the south (Florida) and now living in New York, I can say that my experience finds most people, firstly, have a skewed perspective on guns as a result of the second observation, their complete and total unfamiliarity with them. The word "Gun", I find, often, and quite literally horrifies people.
My Dad lives in Tennessee and there, kids grow up learning about guns and there proper safety and necessary respect. Out in the country it is very common to hear rifle fire. It's literally a part of life in many areas there. It's the ignorance that's the problem. Believe it.

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 07:20 PM
Justin this is a great article. I have to say I am very sad. Not because I am a gun owner but because I am a loyal citizen.

As the shooting in VT showed us a legally armed citizen could have stopped the Gunman.

Law enforcement just isn't given the tools or the training to handle incidents like VT. The are trained to contain and wait for further instructions. I know this from being a law enforcement officer and a SWAT team member.

So some of our elected officials want to strip us of the devices we use to protect ourselves and our democracy.

To bad there is no good press on persons using guns to protect themselves. I know on occasion there is some old lady who shoots a robber but all in all we don't see the good side of lawful self defense using a firearm.

I see very bad parallels to Nazi Germany if they seize our firearms.

I hope you all fight for your right to gun ownership.

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 07:38 PM
I'm glad that so many of you like this article. I wrote it for the ATS newsletter, and I hope that it will inspire you to write your own researched articles for ATS publication. You can say a lot in 6,000 characters. Remember that any time people in power plot against you in secret, THAT is a conspiracy.

In the case of gun control, you're looking at a real conspiracy in which a handufl of people are trying to pull a fast one by sneaking laws into place that YOU don't have a chance to challenge.

"They" are trying to sneak a lot more than gun control past you. I've made this point in other thread that you will read in this forum. Once you see that there is more than this one issue at stake, I'm hoping you'll be mad enough to talk about it with anyone who will listen.

As I demonstrated in my published work, you really can hatch a conspiracy of your own to fight back. I plan to make a seperate thread on that topic in the days to come.

posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 10:55 PM

Originally posted by wreckage
"History shows us that a disarmed population makes for a docile and politically compliant society."
What a load of tripe. Why do countries like the UK and Australia (and nearly every other country in the world) have fewer gun-related deaths than the US? - because they don't allow their citizens to go out and buy any damned weapon they like.

... And with very few notable exceptions, these countries have a considerably smaller population than the US.

The US needs more stringent gun control legislation. Citizens of most states grow up with a 'gun' mentality, just as many grow up with 'religion'. Both are insidious and harmful to a peaceful way of life.

Ummmm ... Yeah... And like that. More generous, glittering generalities, no real substance. Slogans, and generalities, are really not much in the way of accomplished thought. Since, however, you wish to be trite, let me give you a quote from Thomas Jefferson, who as you may recall was one of the "Founding Fathers" regarding government and the common man:

"An unarmed man is a subject. An armed man is a citizen".

'Yes!' to gun control - but keep a careful watch on governments. - Oh, and PLEASE get rid of Bush.

Riddle me this Grasshopper... In our present polite and politically correct culture wherein people like Bush, Gonzales, et al... Aren't afraid of the common man as it is ... Where do you think we would get the where-with-all to dump the government once we have rolled over and given up our leverage? No offense intended Bubba, but you are a typical example of the much rhetoric and fire and brimstone with no substance that I referenced earlier.

I hope you don't construe this as a personal attack... Just want to see if you have anything other than patent silliness and chants to back up what you are saying. Have you given it any thought past your gut level non-understanding of the issues at hand?

And my sincerest apologies to you Justin for making this entry so vitriolic.

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 12:29 AM
If we're going to make any headway against the passionate opposition, we ourselves must be more level-headed. The most common and amateur tactic employed by gun control advocates involves the deliberate yanking of somebody's chain. As all good conspirators know, your opponent will not offer you meaningful resistence if they are distracted by anger.

In those cases where a society has already been largely disarmed, we should expect lower gun crime statistics. We should also be prepared to understand that those populations have long since given up any notion of resisting their national governments in the event of tyranny. That tyranny may not exist at this moment, but it oculd resutl at any time during the next century.

There's an old debating tactic that relies heavily on human nature. It's called examplery logic. It's a form of misdirection that works very well. All you have to do is state what appears to be an obvious fact without acknowledging the history of the thing. A case in point would be the statement that disarmed populations in certain small countries today suffer from fewer gun crimes.

When you answer this "charge," you're being lead away from your point. As Americans, we are talking about an American tradition. In this case, we are speaking specifically about a nation that has NOT YET surrendered its privilidge of private arms. As Americans, we can't speak to the choices already made by other populations, but...we can speak to our own situation. Don't let yourself be lured away from this context, and you'll find it much easier to make your point without blowing a gasket.

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 01:13 AM

Originally posted by wreckage
"Why do countries like the UK and Australia (and nearly every other country in the world) have fewer gun-related deaths than the US? - because they don't allow their citizens to go out and buy any damned weapon they like."

All these countries you refer to are less FREE than America. England and Australia are both precariously close to becoming out-and-out police states. And how will their citizens throw off their governments when they've had enough?

I bet China has pretty much zero gun-related deaths. What a paradise!

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 02:10 AM
Well thanks for your article. A few years ago, being a canadian, I was against guns and was saying that americans were a bunch of idiots running around with their guns... but I was ignorant of the purpose of the second amendment.

Well this website and many US radio shows made me understand why it was important and now i'm trying to teach my family and friends... but as soon as I pronounce the word GUN they go crazy. Then I ask them why they think guns are bad and they don't have an answer. I hate that, no argument and don't want to listen to real arguments and debate...

Anyway I don't care and I will be soon getting a weapon and learn to shoot properly and learn basics of security.

As the tyranny grows, we MUST be armed.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Vitchilo]

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 03:05 AM
The reason that sponsors of gun control legislation typically have no knowledge about the subject, is because they have little or no involvement with drafting it. The "Patriot act", NAFTA and other anti-American legislation comes from the Counsel on Foreign Relations, the U. N. and their affiliated "think tanks". This fact alone indicates who it is that really "hates our freedom".

I have researched this subject extensively since the events of September, 2001, and I have got to tell you that "docile and politically compliant" is a big understatement. You are on the right track though, our government is "centralizing power" - much like a communist government would.

The Counsel on Foreign Relations has practiced Marxist Idealism since it was first founded as the Round Table Group.

The United Nations was created before WWII, just as The League of Nations had been formed before WWI. The U.N. was planned and organized by Marxist Communists such as Alger Heiss. The U.N.s programs and even its methods, are by definition Marxist.

Since about 1900, the US Government has been removing democratically elected leaders from power in countries around the world and replacing them with many of the world's most oppressive dictators.
According to Marxist theory, one way to establish a socialist system, is to first create a temporary dictatorship.

Also according to Marxist theory:

To establish a socialist system in countries with strong centralized state-oriented traditions, such as France and Germany, the upheaval would have to be violent. (such as WW I & II)

To establish a socialist system in countries with strong democratic institutional structures (e.g. Britain, the US and the Netherlands) the transformation to communism could be achieved through peaceful means (such as through ballet initiatives)

This is why they are pushing Socialized health care, more controlling laws and more intrusive government agencies, they are imposing Communism upon us.

As Thomas Jefferson understood, freedom and private property could never be taken away from armed Americans.

And that is why they want our guns.

Read about Agenda 21 and all of the other plans in the works to take away your freedom and property:

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 03:24 AM

Originally posted by wreckage
- because they don't allow their citizens to go out and buy any damned weapon they like.

Very true, anyone can just go out and buy one of the most deadly weapons ever known to man, responsible for taking tens of thousands of lives each year. Automobiles should be banned.

Guns on the other hand are only "easy to go out and buy" if you listen to the news corporations propaganda. Go out and see for yourself, guns are not so easily or quickly obtained. Your first challenge will be finding a gun shop.

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 03:58 AM
justin, i just want to say, you may be my new personal hero.

i served 12 years in the military with pride. ill be damned if im going to go quietly into that good night on our rights.

without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the bill of rights is nothing but toilet paper.

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 05:38 AM
Oh boy,

This is really getting sacry! Right under our noses, the Bill of Rights is slowly dissappearing. Too many people have the idea that Gun Control is a way to cut down on crime. The big problem is that they are missing the REAL DANGER that is sneeking up on Every truly patriotic American.

When America was founded, the framers of our constitution understood that Power has a inhairent ability to corrupt people. Understanding this, they had the foresight to build an emergency check into our Nation. The Role of the Malitia is to balance the power of our government by being able to take back our government from a dictator by force if everything else were to fail. As the Government power rapidly expands, this check is dissappearing from the system.

So far, in 231 years of American history, we've never needed this check. The fact that it has never been used, has caused many to forget why it exists. If we, as a nation forget why our forefathers fought for these rights, they will lose their meaning for us as a people. In my oppinion, the worst thing that could ever happen to America, is the Bill of Rights becoming nothing more than a historical document in a museam. The day that happens, America will be no more!

Let's spread to word, and Make sure people Know. For all it's flaws, I still love my country. I'm not going to sit back and hold my tounge while someone armed with an ink pen tried to Steal it from me and my family. I'm a patriot who loves to fly my flag, don't think you're going to walk in to my house and expect to take it without a fight!

Thanks Justin, now let's go spread the word! I've already E-mailed a good friend of mine who isn't an ATS member to come in and look at what you are sharing, because I know he'll want to know about this.


posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
History shows us that a disarmed population makes for a docile and politically compliant society.
Complete bollocks, we in the UK got an unfair tax rescinded through mass demonstration and refusal to pay. Hardly politically compliant.

When was the last time you and your guns got a tax overturned?

Politically compliant is having a president elected through voter intimidation and voting fraud.

Guns didnt really help there either. Did it?

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 09:59 AM
hi, i got this (only one actually in an email and haven't visited in a loooong time) and was wondering since I am copying this into notepad, i wanted to share it on frostwire and since I am going to convert this into pdb format for personal use along with ur username and post numbers, etc.. from at the very top u know where the date is all and stuff, can I please post/upload this to for sharing with your permission of course.
for both frostwire and memoware as a doc type pdb and for memoware as a pdb of the doc type variety. I'll add that you gave permission of course and esp. i need this permission for uploading to memoware, frostwire not so much.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in