72 Killed During Gun Confiscation In Boston

Hat tip to Right Truth

An interesting take on the subject of freedom. Make sure you read all the way to the end…very short!

BOSTON

National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington 's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this, people, is how the American Revolution began.

April 20, 1775

.........

Read More

You Never Know Who's Packing!

From Monkey in the Middle


From Bob (With Thanks)

"Pistol Packing MAMA MIA!"

And if LOOKS could kill, she wouldn't need a gun ... or a knife, or a sword, or a grenade, or a harpoon, or a flame thrower, or some poison, or an atomic bomb, or even Cloverleaf Food, ...

If Eleanor Roosevelt can have a gun, shouldn't we all be able to have a gun?

BTW:  Even then official pictures looked terrible!

Read More

The Battle Of Athens

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

Or How Common Citizens Removed A Corrupt Government From Their County.

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation.

Here is what happened:

Following World War II in 1946, violence erupted when returning American soldiers discovered their Tennessee county had been taken over by political corruption. Their plan to take it back involved bullets—lots of bullets—and dynamite.

Why Athens in McMinn County, Tennessee became a battleground was due to Paul Cantrell, a Democrat running for sheriff in the 1936 election. He won over his Republican opponent, although the victory was tainted by rumors of fraud. Cantrell was a corrupt sheriff—for example, since state law allowed his office to collect fees for each person booked, jailed, and released, deputies boarded buses passing through the city and arrested passengers on bogus charges of drunkenness, forcing them to pay fines. Prostitution, gambling, and kickbacks from illegal drinking establishments were commonplace.

The tide began to turn in 1945 when GIs returning to Athens were subjected to arrest on the flimsiest excuses and heavily fined. When the fed up soldiers attempted to support their choice for sheriff against Pat Mansfield (by then, Cantrell had been elected to the state Senate and backed Mansfield’s bid), matters boiled over into direct conflict on Election Day 1946.

Mansfield hired several hundred armed “deputies” to patrol the voting precincts in Athens—and no doubt to assist in the typical ballot stuffing and voter intimidation. The volatile situation escalated when Walter Ellis, an ex-GI and volunteer poll watcher, was arrested by Mansfield’s deputies and held without charge. A black resident, Tom Gillespie, was refused the right to vote, beaten, and shot. More GIs were arrested and threatened with violence. By the end of the day, the former soldiers had enough.

They broke into the town armory for weapons and besieged the jail, where Mansfield and his deputies had taken the ballet boxes. Battle continued sporadically throughout the night, resulting in wounded on both sides. When the GIs ran out of bullets around dawn, they began throwing dynamite. The deputies inside the jail surrendered.

The highly publicized Battle of Athens not only ousted corruption from one county in Tennessee, the lesson learned would ultimately lead to great reforms in Southern politics.

**************************************************************************

This is a part of American history that all elected official should learn and remember.  When the government forgets whom they serve and dictates to the American People what to think, do, say, read, and how to vote, it is incumbent upon the citizens of that town, city, county, state or nation to rise up and remove (By force if necessary.) the dictator.

What happened in Athens, Tennessee was the most extreme example of citizen action.  The last resort of a desperate people.

In such desperation the American people will do anything to return their rights to them.  Something every politician in this nation should remember.

Read More

Clear thinking on mass killings and gun control is slowly emerging

Efforts to prevent future mass killings, like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where 20 children and six adults died last year, continue on Capitol Hill. These efforts, however, are symbolic, not substantive, and focus too much on guns, magazines and related firearms issues, instead of on what causes people to commit these horrible crimes. The key element in these shootings is the mental condition of the killers and what things fostered their desire to kill people, and that must be addressed.

Whatever Congress comes up with will certainly put the liberties and privacy rights of Americans at risk, as limits on 2nd Amendment rights and invasions of private medical information will necessarily be under consideration.

We will not reduce mass shootings by limiting what law abiding gun owners can purchase, since they won't use them to hurt other people. Vice President Joe Biden's insulting implication that people don't really "need" an AR-15, and just want one because of how it feels ignores a basic tenet of the nation that elected him: we have personal liberties here, and that's all the reason we need to buy any gun.

Similarly, a blanket denial of 2nd Amendment rights to those with any record of treatment by or consultation with mental health professionals is excessive.

There has been strong support for the idea that guns, high-capacity magazines, etc. are responsible for mass shootings and should be restricted or banned, but that support is waning. More important is that this truly misses the point, and basing policies on missed points is a prescription for failure.

And now there is more compelling evidence that banning or restricting guns or magazines won't work, and even will make things worse, and it comes from a group that has instant credibility on this issue: police officers.

In March, PoliceOne, which serves police officers across the nation and has more than 450,000 registered members, "conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control," so states the introduction to PoliceOne's report.

"More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals [70 percent of whom are field-level law enforcers who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis] took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility," the introduction noted, in discussing the nearly-thirty question survey.

Here are some of the takeaway points from that survey:

** Ninety-five percent said that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

** Seventy-one percent said that a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. And, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime.

** Roughly 85 percent said passing the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have zero or a negative effect on their safety.

** They cited things they felt would help prevent mass shootings: more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians, 28 percent; more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons, 19 percent;

more armed guards/paid security personnel, 15 percent.

** Nearly 90 percent believe casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

** More than 80 percent support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one on the job.

** More than half of respondents feel increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could reduce gun violence.

** The officers were about evenly split on whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun.

** They believe that cultural/societal influences promote gun violence: violent movies and video games, 14 percent; early release and short sentencing for violent offenders, 14 percent; poor identification/treatment of mentally-ill individuals, 10 percent. However, 38 percent cited a decline in parenting and family values.

The majority plainly does not support the ideas being pushed by gun-control advocates favoring restrictions on weapons and magazines, and many feel those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent crime. They also support enforcing existing laws before passing new ones.

The mainstream media openly supports restrictions on personal liberty, at least where guns are concerned, and suppresses news of gun owners stopping crimes. Many of our elected public servants, who prefer an unarmed and therefore compliant populace, also support gun control.

But the majority of police surveyed overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

Police officers patrolling America’s streets have a legitimate interest in making sure that we make decisions about guns that support their work and do not make things worse. With this survey, their voice has been heard, and they disagree with the current mania.

Perhaps it would be smart to listen to them.

Read More

New York State Non-Compliance Resistance to the NY Safe Act Arms Bill

Link to video (full 33 minute version) from January 29, 2013 Q&A forum

From YouTube:

"Residents of Erie County, New York overflow the State's dictating / Q & A forum concerning the
unconstitutional NY Safe Act arms bill.

The passion and anger from the people is evident of Erie County resistance.

After the first speaker spoke, the second one was introduced. A request from an audience member to
recite the Pledge of Allegiance was ignored by theState. So the people took over and assertively
recited it anyway.

The State attempted to have private interviews with the media which alienated the crowd further, who
then demanded transparency. Then the State wanted the questions from the audience to be private, which riled folks even more.

Questions asked by Western New Yorkers covered: non-compliance, penalties, jury nullification, 2nd
Amendment profiling into domestic terrorists, government tyranny, police, sheriff, and more.

Other topics, and especially on the people forming militias was missed due to full camera memory.

Welcome to blue collar Buffalo.

* * *

Clarence, NY (WKBW) -

A question and answer session on New York's new gun law turned testy, as gun owners unleash a fury of anger on the new legislation.

Frustration boiled over for people who feel as though they are law abiding citizens, being turned into criminals.

For many, it was a chance to vent anger at Albany.

One WNYer even said "You put a brown shirt on Mr. Cuomo and put him on
television, he would look just like Hitler."

Another chimed in, "Angry people get together, they form militias
folks. This country, this WNY is prime for something like that!"

Western New York gun owners say they SAFE Act and its ban on assault weapons makes no sense.

One of the big concerns -- who is footing the bill for making changes to guns that are now considered assault weapons. State officials told the crowd the gun owners are the ones responsible.

People in the crowd also had a lot of questions about the registration laws. One gun owner asked,"What is the penalty if you don't register it? 'Cause I guarantee there's a lot of people that aren't going to."

At times, advocates felt answers were incomplete or political."

Link to video (short version)


Link to video (full 33 minute version)

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Read More

Passing more laws and restrictions to control lawful gun owners

By James Shott

There are of people who are confused about our country’s founding principles, quite a few of whom are in positions to influence and dictate to others.

Jesse Jackson proposes to hold gun manufacturers responsible for what anyone who buys, borrows or steals their products might do with them. He believes that "these assault weapons can only kill people and in fact are threats to national security.”

Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, who proposed what he called the nation's toughest gun ban, does not know what the 2nd Amendment is all about. "You don't need 10 bullets to kill a deer," he howled, at a recent appearance. Gov. Cuomo seems to think the Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee our right to bear arms so we can hunt and shoot targets. A shocking number of Americans share this fallacy.

The NRA produced a TV spot pointing out that while President Obama's children attend a school protected by armed guards, the president does not support that same protection for other children. White House spokesman Jay Carney condemned the NRA for using the president's children in pursuit of their agenda, a willful distortion of what the NRA did, which was merely alluding to the security issue.

However, only hours later Mr. Obama festooned himself with children as he announced measures and proposed new laws to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans in reaction to the mass killing of students and staff in Sandy Hook, Conn.

Prior to Mr. Obama's enacting increased background checks, privacy intrusions, etc., Vice President Joe Biden in a meeting with gun-rights organizations said that "we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately,” but his task force then recommended that Congress pass additional laws for the government to enforce.

The president said on the campaign trail in 2008, "I will not take your shotgun away.  I will not take your rifle away.  I will not take your hand gun away." This statement, along with other statements and actions, illustrates his confused notion of how the U.S. government is designed. He is only the President of the United States, not its emperor, and there are two other branches of government that are co-equal with the Executive branch. He also seems not to realize that the American people pay him to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," not alter it to his liking.

In addition to guaranteeing Americans a broad range of personal rights, such as free expression and to own weapons sufficient to ward off tyrants and thugs, the Founders established a system of checks and balances to prevent any of the three co-equal branches of government from gaining too much power. You would expect someone claiming to have been a constitutional law professor to understand this.

The tragic murders of 20 children and six adults at the Sandy Hook school has proved to be too tempting a morsel for the president and his fellow 2nd Amendment enemies to resist. Rahm Emanuel's "Chicago crisis rule" still holds: the Sandy Hook crisis has not been wasted.

The first information reported about the incident was that an "assault weapon" was used at Sandy Hook, and that was enough to launch a new fusillade of gun control rhetoric and proposed measures to end such violence once and for all. However, more than a month after the horrific shooting conflicting information about whether an "assault weapon" was even used at Sandy Hook has finally leaked out. NBC News' Pete Williams reported that, in fact, four handguns were found in the school, and the only "assault weapon" anywhere around was found in the trunk of a car. And what about rumors of a second person arrested there?

What actually happened at Sandy Hook? We don't really know. Reporting of the incident by an incurious media has greatly helped the emotional reaction to the shooting overpower sober and rational analysis, and the mania to ban "assault weapons" has been reborn.

It's easy to blame weapons and move on, believing the problem is solved. But the easiest solution is often wrong, which is the case where mass murders are concerned. The problem with focusing on "assault weapons," even if one was used in these horrible incidents, is that it ignores the true problem: what motivated some nut-job to kill lots of people?

The one thing common to all mass killings -- shootings, bombings or whatever -- is one or more persons filled with evil intent or who is/are mentally unstable, or both. "Assault weapons," or rocket launchers, or M1 Abrams tanks in the hands of 99.9 percent of Americans would result in zero deaths. You do not increase the security of the people by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Our forefathers paid too high a price to guarantee our personal liberty to sacrifice some of it in a vain attempt to fix a problem that is not caused by the people having too much liberty.

Once lost, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to regain.

Cross-posted from Observations jshott.com

Read More

Ben Swann: Truth Behind Piers Morgan's Anti-Gun "Facts"

In this video, Ben Swann of Reality Check corrects the "facts" that Piers Morgan used during his interview of Alex Jones of PrisonPlanet and Infowars.  Excellent work on his part.

• EU named Britain as the most violent country in the EU.
• UK has 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, which is ahead of even South Africa (1,609 per 100,000).
• The US has 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

Piers Morgan, go home.

Link to video


--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Read More

Gun Control: Why the Rush?

Why the rush when it comes to the current push for gun control legislation (and executive orders)?

It is because those who want to control guns seek to capitalize on the current wave of emotion as a result of the Sandy Hook attack, so that there will be less of a chance that logic and reason will be brought into play.  That is why the power hungry love a crisis ("never let a crisis go to waste") so that they can take advantage of emotion and the absence, or even outright dismissal, of rational thought to achieve their own objectives.

It is therefore healthy for a free people to be skeptical of the actions of their government.  It is even more important that they do so when the government tells us such actions must be taken "quickly" to avert some sort of "tragedy."  We must force them to debate the issue using logic, facts, and reason within the framework of our Constitution to arrive at a solution, if a solution is required at all.

The current issue involves the right to bear arms as codified by the Second Amendment of our Constitution.  When any issue arises that may impact our liberties as citizens of the United States, we must deal with it in an deliberate and thoughtful manner to best safeguard our rights.  To cavalierly charge forward in a quest to solve some perceived problem has a high probability of trampling on our rights.  This may be by design, mind you, which I believe to be the case in the current issue involving our right to bear arms.

We must rationally consider the issue at hand in order to arrive at a sound solution (if a solution is necessary) that protects the freedoms of Americans.  To rush to a solution may throw away our rights in the process.

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Read More

Some important issues deserving attention as the New Year begins

By James Shott

With the country facing the $16.4 trillion debt limit in two months – which works out to about $52,000 per man, woman and child – and with the government spending about a third more than it collects every year, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Friday that president Barack Obama should invoke the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling on his own, circumventing Congress. “I would do it, in a second, but I’m not the President of the United States,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

She believes the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that the validity of U.S. public debts “shall not be questioned,” gives Mr. Obama all the authority he needs to raise the ceiling.

That’s just what the country needs: the biggest spending president in the history of the nation by far – with trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year of his presidency – having the ability to unilaterally increase the amount of money the country borrows whenever he wants to.

Barack Obama is an irresponsible spendthrift who has shown no capacity for fiscal matters, and therefore needs a mechanism, like Congressional intervention, to keep him from bankrupting the country. Congress must not allow him to invoke the 14^thAmendment.

Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is quoted as having said something like “never let a good crisis go to waste,” and anti-gun zealots have thus initiated new efforts to ban scary looking so-called “assault weapons,” or even repeal the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent future mass murders like the Newtown, CT school incident in which 26 people were murdered by what most people understand was a crazed individual.

Other Americans are justifiably concerned about such violence and also support those measures. But those prescriptions miss the point: The factor responsible for this horrible incident was the state of mind of the murderer, not guns or the 2nd Amendment. What we must focus on are mental health issues, our dramatically devolved culture, and providing better school security.

The Founders, who had just put their lives on the line to gain independence, understood that Americans must be guaranteed the right to defend themselves with weapons equal to those that may be used against them. Some states felt so strongly that certain rights, like the right to bear arms, needed to be explicitly guaranteed that they would not ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights being included.

If measures such as those that are being advocated were in force in the 1770s, we would be singing “God Save The Queen” as our national anthem.

One of the reasons our country is in such horrible condition at this time is that some of our elected representatives have been in office for decades, during which time their perspective has most often changed for the worse. Long tenure in office is contrary to the concept of citizen leaders who serve their country for a short time, and then return to civilian life, as it was early in our history. This same problem exists for presidents as well as Congresspersons.

Even if we have someone a majority of Americans regard as a good president in office, removing the ban restricting his or her tenure to eight years opens the door to eventually having a “president for life” which is not so different from being ruled by a king. That didn’t work out so well prior to 1776, and there are examples throughout history where people stayed too long in office to their country’s detriment.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected four times, and his policies extended the Great Depression by several years and deepened its effects, increasing the suffering of the people who elected him. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act was unconstitutional, he attempted to overcome the Court’s opposition by increasing the number of Justices, and doing so by adding appointees favorable to his policies.

His behavior prompted the proposal for and the adoption of the 22^nd Amendment, which is one of the best things resulting from FDR’s presidency.

Eight years is enough for a president to hold office. Leave the 22^nd Amendment alone.

As 2013 begins the country still languishes in non-recovery from the 2008 recession, President Barack Obama gave a New Year’s gift to returning members of Congress, federal workers and Vice President Joe Biden by signing an executive order ending a years-long pay freeze.

Federal employees are already paid more than their private sector counterparts. “The federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers,” the Congressional Budget Office reported.

Government employees at all levels exist to serve the public. They should not be treated less well than private sector workers, but sometimes when circumstances warrant, they must make sacrifices, like everyone else has to do. And considering the nation’s critical fiscal condition alluded to above, any additional non-essential spending is plain foolish.

The House of Representatives has voted to rescind Mr. Obama’s Executive Order.

Cross-posted from Observations

Read More