Gun Control
0 view | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from THE MEGAPHONE
Scoop.it!

Women Against Gun Control

Women Against Gun Control | Gun Control | Scoop.it

SEND A MESSAGE TO POLITICIANS:

(especially Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton)

“ Women do NOT Support Gun Control!”

“Women Do NOT Want to be Victims!”


Via Thomas Wentzel
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from Coffee Party Election Coverage
Scoop.it!

Paul McCartney records message for gun control group Voices Against Violence

Paul McCartney records message for gun control group Voices Against Violence | Gun Control | Scoop.it
By Natalie Finn, E! Online 

Yoko Ono isn't the only one still trying to give peace a chance. Like John Lennon's widow, Paul McCartney has taken a stand in favor of stiffening gun laws in the United States. The Beatles great did his part recently by recording a message for Voices Against Violence, a campaign started by Tony Bennett and his son Danny to get people to call their congressmen to encourage them to vote in favor of new legislation.

 

And guess who's serving as head cheerleader?

 

By texting "MYVOICE" to 877877, you get an automated message from McCartney, after which you're connected to a U.S. senator's office... MORE

 


Via Michael Charney
more...
Jack Hansen's curator insight, April 20, 2013 11:57 PM

Stay out of American politics, Paul.  You rub elbows with Obama as it is; that doesn't give you the right to talk about taking away any of our rights, especially the one that protects us from the very government that has you snickered.

Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from Littlebytesnews Current Events
Scoop.it!

Former Columbine Student Writes Open Letter To Obama Against Gun Control: ‘Whose Side Are You On?’

Former Columbine Student Writes Open Letter To Obama Against Gun Control: ‘Whose Side Are You On?’ | Gun Control | Scoop.it

Columbine survivor Evan Todd released an open letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday in which he offers a point-by-point analysis of proposed firearms control initiatives, dismissing them as ineffective and dangerous to Americans’ rights.

He recently outlined why he fervently disagrees with the gun control policies that have been proposed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. TheBlazeinterviewed Todd earlier this week and subsequently detailed how his experience being shot back in 1999 has shaped his views on the issue.

The letter, which speaks directly to the president, covers a number of key facets in the gun control debate. On universal background checks, Todd expresses his fears that “universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation.” Additionally, he says his belief that assault weapons bans are ineffective and argues that the first law did little to stop violence when it was in effect from 1994 until 2004; he cites Columbine as a prime example.

“It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher,” he writes. “The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.”

“Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?,” he asks the president in the text. “Whose side are you on?”

Read Todd’s open letter to Obama, below.

Mr. President,

As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:

Universal Background Checks

First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

10-Round Limit for Magazines

Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?

Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.


Via littlebytesnews
more...
Amanda Rochelle Yates's curator insight, April 22, 2013 1:56 AM

What I really like about this is the fact that it was written by a Columbine survivor. Not just any survivor, but one who was wounded during the attack. He is not anti-gun, even given his history. I love when he says thatwith proposed gun laws "would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?" And since when have criminals followed the law?

Jessica Cusick's curator insight, February 9, 2015 1:11 PM

There is not much that one president can do to protect people from guns and school shootings. The president cannot make guns completely illegal because it is written in the Constitution that we have the right to bear arms and that right will never be taken away. There is only so much America can do when it comes to gun control. Making laws to restrict guns is really as far as anyone can go. There will always be guns, there will always be insane people wanting guns, and there will always be deaths due to guns. It is just a matter of keeping the insane people away from guns and keeping sane people safe.

Travis Elliott's curator insight, March 12, 2015 10:12 AM

The bureaucracy being discussed is not clear but is about those concerning gun control. In the article, I don't understand the puprose of the attempts to ban guns due to the excessive amounts of criminal activity. I do agree with the students article, and his attempts to pursuade President Obama not to ban guns also due to the necessity of personal protection as well as the illusivness of criminals to obtain guns.

Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from Littlebytesnews Current Events
Scoop.it!

Over 1100 Green Berets Sign Letter Against Gun Control&Offer Solutions To Gun Violence

Over 1100 Green Berets Sign Letter Against Gun Control&Offer Solutions To Gun Violence | Gun Control | Scoop.it
More than 1,100 former and current Green Berets have put their names to a letter condemning any efforts to restrict gun ownership.

 

More than 1,100 former and current Army Special Forces troops -- Green Berets -- have reportedly put their names to a letter condemning any efforts to restrict gun ownership following the massacre of 20 students and six staff at Sandy Hill Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The 2,900-word letter has been distributed to media outlets and posted on Professionalsoldiers.com, which is operated by retired Army Special Forces Master Sgt. Jeff Hinton. Because of the sensitive nature of their military careers the names of those signing the letter are not being released.

Hinton -- who has routinely exposed phony Green Berets and others on his website -- said he has confirmed that everyone who put his name to the letter is a current or former Special Forces soldier. Military.com could not validate all 1,100 names by press time.

Hinton's original goal was to collect 100 signatures. He was surprised by the response he received.

The letter makes the case for allowing civilians to own and use a military-style assault rifle, in particular the AR-15, as well as high-capacity magazines that can hold in excess of 10 rounds.

While the AR-15 is designed to look like the Army's M4A1 rifle, it is not able to fire automatically and cannot be reconfigured to do so, the letter states. As for limiting magazines to 10 rounds, they wrote "it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10-round magazines with full magazines.

"Would an increase of 6 -8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not."

The view offered by the Special Forces soldiers is markedly different than that given by retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of forces in Afghanistan, who also came out of the Special Forces community.

In its letter, the group states they also are "loving and caring fathers and grandfathers" who have been "stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook."

But solutions cannot and will not be found in new laws restricting gun ownership, the group wrote. The writers argue that the Supreme Court has maintained the right for citizens to own weapons in common use, which does not rule out military-style weapons.

In its letter, the group also offers several recommendations it says will help solve gun-violence, including gun-safety programs in schools, legislation mandating that court-determined mentally ill people undergo treatment, and giving border states the job of implementing border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of both firearms and drugs.

The government intercepts only about 10 percent of illegal drugs coming into the country, while its attempt to track illegal guns has also proven a failure, the group said, pointing to the "Fast and Furious" program that allowed criminals to buy and move guns.

"Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept … we believe that border states will be far more competent at this mission," the group says.

The group also supports passing Assisted Outpatient Treatment laws to allow courts to require individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment.

"In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable," the group wrote in the letter. "We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

As for schools, which have been the sites of several mass murders in recent history, the group supports state and local boards developing security measures they deem necessary. This includes arming staff, if that is their wish. The group also calls for firearms safety instruction -- such as the National Rifle Association's "Eddie the Eagle" program -- in classrooms.

The repeal of the "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990," does not work but establishes schools as tempting targets to anyone wanting to inflict violence, the group said in their letter.

The group also recommends that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged, citing research showing links between the exposure to those popular mediums and desensitization to actual violence.

"We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer," the group states. "We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set."

 

Here is the text of the letter:

A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second AmendmentPosted on January 29, 2013 by Bulldog1

I received this letter from members of the SOF community on their concerns for America and the Second Amendment. This letter was signed by over 1100 members of the SOF community, of which the names will not be published as this is Active and Retired members.

 

Whether you agree with it or not, it is well worth the read.

 

29 Jan 2013
Page 1 of 3

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

 

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

 

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

 

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

 

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

 

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

 

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

 

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

 

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned


29 Jan 2013
Page 2 of 3

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

 

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

 

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

 

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”


“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

 

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

 

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

 

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

 

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

 

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 3 of 3

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect.

 

These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “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”.

 

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

 

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

 

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

 

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

 

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

 

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

 

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

 

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

 

1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

 

We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”.

 

The letter stands for itself.

Read it and send it everywhere.

 

 

We have a PDF copy if anyone wants it, we will email it to you if you contact us as adding it here will use to much bandwidth.

Source for this letter is the SOF community at Professional Soldiers.Com “Quiet Professionals”


Via littlebytesnews
more...
littlebytesnews's curator insight, January 31, 2013 12:03 PM

It is great to hear from our Special Forces community and know that they are loyal to their country and the oath they took to protect and defend it, including our Constitutional rights. While the government doesn't give us our unalieanable rights, it is the job of the military and our government to protect those rights. Sadly, the Obama administration has been slowly chipping away at those rights and denying protections for our First Amendment, particularly for religious liberty under Obamacare and now our Second Amendment is under attack. 

 

I included the entire text of the letter for all to see and to help spread the message, but I also included a verification of the letter from the military.com site which has helped verify the authenticity of the letter. The Green Beret members and other Special Forces members who signed it can not be named as many are active duty, while some are retired, but they wanted to make sure the public and our government knows where they stand on the issue.

 

I think this is very important for everyone to know and support and hope this gives a strong message to those in power who have vowed to protect and defend our Constitution, by protecting those rights granted to us by our Creator and not the government. The government of today seems to have forgotten they work for us and the Constitution is a set of laws that limit the federal government and do not allow the federal government to limit us or take away our rights. 

 

Please share far and wide! I'm so proud of our military, especially our special forces and veterans who have served and continue to serve with respect to our country and their oath. May God continue to bless America and deliver us from this tyrannical government before it is too late!

 

Related:

Original Letter Source: http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40772

 

Other Sources:

http://guardianofvalor.com/a-letter-from-the-special-forces-community-concerning-the-second-amendment/ and

http://asmdss.com/page/news.html/_/articles/letter-from-special-forces-to-america-2nd-amendment.html

 

 

Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from News You Can Use - NO PINKSLIME
Scoop.it!

Mainstream Media Continues Campaign of Pro Gun Control Disinformation

Mainstream Media Continues Campaign of Pro Gun Control Disinformation | Gun Control | Scoop.it
theintelhub.com February 4, 2012 In the last month and a half since the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut we have seen the mainstream corporate media conduct an all out attack on the 2...

Via #BBBundyBlog #NOMORELIES Tom Woods #Activist Award #Scoopiteer >20,000 Sources >250K Connections http://goo.gl/ruHO3Q
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from THE MEGAPHONE
Scoop.it!

[Video] Gun Control Rally is Overwhelmed by Pro Gun Supporters Who Take Over Podium

[Video] Gun Control Rally is Overwhelmed by Pro Gun Supporters Who Take Over Podium | Gun Control | Scoop.it
You know, we keep hearing about how 90% of the country supports expanded background checks, and a majority support new gun control. However, whenever it comes to actually taking action, those alleg...

Via Thomas Wentzel
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from Criminal Justice in America
Scoop.it!

Sheriffs Across U.S. Rise Up Against Obama Regime

Sheriffs Across U.S. Rise Up Against Obama Regime Sheriffs have risen up all over our great nation to stand up against the unconstitutional gun control measu...

Via Randy L. Dixon Rivera
more...
Randy L. Dixon Rivera's curator insight, April 18, 2013 12:45 PM
Lisa Phillips ‏@blondenfun112 Apr

Sheriffs Across U.S. Rise Up Against Obama Regime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdQnTPdIn9I&sns=tw ;… #NDAA

Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from News You Can Use - NO PINKSLIME
Scoop.it!

Maryland Teenage Girl Destroys Arguments For Gun Control

Maryland Teenage Girl Destroys Arguments For Gun Control | Gun Control | Scoop.it
the best testimony I’ve heard to date given against gun control was delivered by 15 year old Sarah Merkle of Maryland

Via #BBBundyBlog #NOMORELIES Tom Woods #Activist Award #Scoopiteer >20,000 Sources >250K Connections http://goo.gl/ruHO3Q
more...
Dakota Swank's comment, April 17, 2013 4:57 PM
That's really what it is they're trying to do. They don't want to take them away (aside from assault riffles), they just want to make it more difficult to get them. It most likely won't even affect you.
Kole Carpenter's comment, April 18, 2013 12:05 PM
I think stricter ways to get guns is ok. Being an avid hunter I would much rather have it be harder to get a gun then have guns banned all together. She had some very good points. She is an example of a level headed person that shoots for fun
Alisha Crane's comment, April 18, 2013 1:39 PM
I think she made some great points. I hunt and shoot for fun so it is nice to hear someone else that has the level head and smarts behind a gun like myself and many other people I know. She is an example of the great things that can come from being smart about guns and being properly trained to use them.
Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from Daily News Reads
Scoop.it!

Don't do it, fight hard: Shooters MP urges US to oppose firearms control

Don't do it, fight hard: Shooters MP urges US to oppose firearms control | Gun Control | Scoop.it
A NSW MP has described Australia's gun laws as ''stupid'' and urged Americans to ''fight and fight hard'' against gun control measures being considered in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre in the US.

Via Webgrrl
more...
Webgrrl's curator insight, April 18, 2013 6:37 PM

WHY HOW IS HE in Upper Parliament?? WTF?? >>>>  Mr Borsak and his Shooters and Fishers Party colleague, Robert Brown, have secured a deal with the O'Farrell government to open up 79 national parks in NSW to recreational hunting in return for electricity privatisation support.

Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from Littlebytesnews Current Events
Scoop.it!

Former Columbine Student Writes Open Letter To Obama Against Gun Control: ‘Whose Side Are You On?’

Former Columbine Student Writes Open Letter To Obama Against Gun Control: ‘Whose Side Are You On?’ | Gun Control | Scoop.it

Columbine survivor Evan Todd released an open letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday in which he offers a point-by-point analysis of proposed firearms control initiatives, dismissing them as ineffective and dangerous to Americans’ rights.

He recently outlined why he fervently disagrees with the gun control policies that have been proposed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. TheBlazeinterviewed Todd earlier this week and subsequently detailed how his experience being shot back in 1999 has shaped his views on the issue.

The letter, which speaks directly to the president, covers a number of key facets in the gun control debate. On universal background checks, Todd expresses his fears that “universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation.” Additionally, he says his belief that assault weapons bans are ineffective and argues that the first law did little to stop violence when it was in effect from 1994 until 2004; he cites Columbine as a prime example.

“It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher,” he writes. “The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.”

“Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?,” he asks the president in the text. “Whose side are you on?”

Read Todd’s open letter to Obama, below.

Mr. President,

As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:

Universal Background Checks

First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

10-Round Limit for Magazines

Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?

Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.


Via littlebytesnews
more...
Amanda Rochelle Yates's curator insight, April 22, 2013 1:56 AM

What I really like about this is the fact that it was written by a Columbine survivor. Not just any survivor, but one who was wounded during the attack. He is not anti-gun, even given his history. I love when he says thatwith proposed gun laws "would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?" And since when have criminals followed the law?

Jessica Cusick's curator insight, February 9, 2015 1:11 PM

There is not much that one president can do to protect people from guns and school shootings. The president cannot make guns completely illegal because it is written in the Constitution that we have the right to bear arms and that right will never be taken away. There is only so much America can do when it comes to gun control. Making laws to restrict guns is really as far as anyone can go. There will always be guns, there will always be insane people wanting guns, and there will always be deaths due to guns. It is just a matter of keeping the insane people away from guns and keeping sane people safe.

Travis Elliott's curator insight, March 12, 2015 10:12 AM

The bureaucracy being discussed is not clear but is about those concerning gun control. In the article, I don't understand the puprose of the attempts to ban guns due to the excessive amounts of criminal activity. I do agree with the students article, and his attempts to pursuade President Obama not to ban guns also due to the necessity of personal protection as well as the illusivness of criminals to obtain guns.

Rescooped by Melisa Suljic from News You Can Use - NO PINKSLIME
Scoop.it!

CBS Boosts Oprah's 'Remarkable' Pro-Gun Control Speech at Harvard | NewsBusters

CBS Boosts Oprah's 'Remarkable' Pro-Gun Control Speech at Harvard | NewsBusters | Gun Control | Scoop.it

Via #BBBundyBlog #NOMORELIES Tom Woods #Activist Award #Scoopiteer >20,000 Sources >250K Connections http://goo.gl/ruHO3Q
more...
No comment yet.