It has begun.

Despite assurances to the contrary, some are champing at the bit to institute citizen disarmament.

I give you H.R.45, Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, introduced in the House one week ago today by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL).

Per Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition:

If passed, this bill would require that anyone wishing to purchase, own, or possess a “qualifying firearm” – that’s any handgun, and any long gun capable of accepting a detachable magazine – would have to be licensed by the state or the federal government in a licensing program managed by the Attorney General. To get a license you would have to prove you’re you, provide a passport-style photo, a thumbprint, and take a written exam which includes questions about firearms safety, safe storage, the risks of firearms ownership, and anything else the Attorney General deems appropriate. All transfers would be required to go through a licensed dealer with the exception of occasional gifts or bequests between parents, children (18 or over), and grandparents, or loans of not more than 30 days between “persons who are personally known to one another.” (It actually says that. I’m not making this up.) And all transfers would have to be recorded in a “Transfer Record” established and maintained by the Attorney General.

The bill also makes it a crime for a dealer to have shoddy records or fail to appropriately cooperate with any inspectors. It makes failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours a felony punishable by up to 2 years in prison. Failure to keep a firearm locked up in such a way as to keep it inaccessible to anyone under 18 becomes a federal felony too.

Read the bill for yourself .

As of now, it has no co-sponsors. Some will tell you that means there’s no cause for alarm. Some may even tell us this has no chance of passing (now), and to expend effort opposing it will weaken future political efforts.

One mass shooting in a “no guns” zone from now, that could change, and this could come to the front burner. Along with the anticipated push to permanently ban (that means no “sunset clause” this time) all semi-automatics by both name and characteristic.

Here’s the important part: It will make it illegal for you to possess guns you currently and most importantly “legally” own unless you go jump through their hoops, register yourself and obtain a license. All under the watchful oversight of Eric Holder–another grave danger to gun rights our lobbyists see no need to expend “political capital” on.

This is what some people who don’t like gun ownership mean by “common sense gun control” and “reasonable restrictions.”  So much for “shall not be infringed.”

This is nothing less than a declaration of war on American gun owners, and the second amendment, as usual.  You don’t have to support it, but the founding fathers did.  The second amendment wasn’t written because the framers wanted to go out of their way to ensure your right to “hunt.”  The Second amendment, regardless of whether you like this or not, was written to ensure your right to take back the government if it gets out of hand.  That was not just the idea of it, but the wording.  It went WAY beyond the idea of gun ownership and declared your right to have an entire militia.

The second amendment reads as written:

“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.”

Now maybe in today’s day and age, when we rely on the “police” to be granted these permissions and trusts and we live in urban environments with the “rule of law” over our heads as the final word on matters concerning our rights to defend and protect, you know, the New World Order we live in where “rule of law, not the law of the jungle” controls our life.  George HW Bush said that when he shared his exact vision for the New World Order.  Kind of like a 1984 scenario come to life, but on crack.

Now like I said, you may not like guns.  Guns SHOULD NEVER be easily accessible and anyone who owns a gun should take classes on managing them and storing them safely in secure safes and should demonstrate responsibility.  Like swords hundreds of years ago, you could share your dislike for solving matters with swords, just like solving problems with guns is asinine and goes against everything we demonstrate as an intelligent society.  But none the less, their danger is relative to their use.  Over 200 years ago, our founding fathers fought tyranny and corruption in government to establish their right to own and defend a free government they sought.  They wrote the 2nd amendment to ensure that right.

The people’s right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs, and others. Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from “bearing” them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms. Particularly in the event of oppression or slaughter of people by governments or racial majorities, researchers have noted that exercise of the right to bear arms internationally is intrinsically linked to a people’s ability to possess them, and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.

The right to bear arms was addressed by President Ulysses S. Grant who stated, in an address to the Congress on April 19, 1872, that “to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms” was among the goals of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1883, Grant served as president of the National Rifle Association.

Now if you remember from Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, he connected the NRA to the KKK.  This was irresponsible.  Not surprising, however, seeing as how Moore repeated this behavior when misrepresenting 9/11 as a republican conspiracy in Fahrenheit 9/11 .  I like Daniel Sunjata, but he too made this connection in Rescue Me.  The truth about 9/11, that we know, is that the CFR, not just PNAC, produced a pre-9/11 document calling for a New Pearl Harbor like event to justify the geopolitical agenda.  And all of us who do our own research know that Joe Biden met with one of the financiers of 9/11, Brzezinski was a key player in the book that inspired PNAC and many other Democrats played an interest role in the attacks and are just as easily suspects.  And the truth is, republicans and democrats do not describe your suspects, for obvious reasons, corruption does.

Back to Michael Moore connecting the KKK to the NRA.

In the short cartoon in the Documentary “Bowling for Columbine” director Michael Moore suggests a link between the outlawing of the KKK and the Birth of the NRA, do you believe the birth of the NRA is a result of the death of the KKK, in other words, did the KKK form the NRA as a new legal branch as Moore claims?

The truth-

The KKK and NRA have no ties, the NRA was founded by two Northern officers who were displeased at their soldiers performance, and was ruled by northern veterans for 30 years, the NRA bought former slaves and blacks in the 1950-60s firearms to protect themselves from the clan, as well as blockaded any states who didn’t crack down on the KKK, but don’t take my word for it, look up facts.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) was founded in 1871 by an act of the New York Legislature. The white supremacist organization the Klux Klux Klan (KKK) was founded by former Confederate officers in 1866. Recognizing the dangers of the KKK, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Klan Act and the Enforcement Act. This empowered him to utilize troops to suppress the Klan. This action however, made him quite unpopular with the racist whites at the time. So these are two separate organizations not similar like the movie implies.

Michael Moore states that the NRA showed up in Littleton, Colorado for a large pro-gun rally just after Columbine.  Now I am related to a victim of Columbine, so I think I am entitled to address this. This reality that Moore presented was not entirely true. The NRA is a New York Coalition and a non-profit organization that is regulated by law. New York law requires the NRA to have annual meetings (to allow members to debate, pass resolutions, amend by-laws and choose officers). This NRA pro-gun rally at Littleton originally included the annual meeting and other activities and was scheduled well before the shooting.  Moore made it appear as thought they went out of their way to show up, in some kind of insulting manner.  Reality check, the pre-scheduled event became a hot topic only because of timing.  Thank you Michael Moore for your willful disregard for the truth and clear ability to misrepresent and spin the facts as you did with Fahrenheit 9/11.

Moore set up an appointment with Heston in the film for 8:30 AM, yet when he is interviewing him, the wall clock behind Moore shows 6:05. This is because Moore spliced together footage from several different interviews, but tried to make it look like one interview to show that Heston was some kind of irrational monkey who can’t handle a debate.  From the reports coming from the other side of the story, the one Moore didn’t show, Heston claimed that Mr. Moore antagonized him and belittled exaggerated stereotypes about gun owners, which would explain Heston’s actions.  Moore depicts Charlton Heston’s speech “Cold dead hands” as being held 10 days after Columbine at the NRA’s annual meeting in Colorado. When in fact the speech was given one year later in Charlotte NC.

Contrary to the cartoon segment (“A Brief History of the United States”) of the documentary, no one was ever burned to death for being a witch in America. In Colonial America, the punishment for witchcraft was death by hanging. Only in Europe is where witchcraft was punished by burning at the stake.

In the scene where Michael Moore calls out to Charlton Heston, asking him to look at the picture of the little girl, the camera angle switches around from his back to his front while he is calling out to Heston, which he doesn’t respond to, making Heston seem like he is avoiding the issue. The only problem with that is that you can’t see the cameraman in the front from the back, which you would have to for the shot to be taken. The only way in which the cameraman wouldn’t be seen is if it is the same cameraman, taking a shot of his back, then walking around and taking the shot again from the front. Given that cut, we can’t even be sure Charlton Heston was remotely within earshot.

When Moore is going on about “violent video games from Japan,” he shows a group of teenagers playing “Mortal Kombat.” This game is actually American in origin (developed and published by Midway Games Inc.), not Japanese.  Studies have shown, contrary to Moore’s depiction, that violence in videos games did not change statistics of violence in society.  Violent behavior has a direct relation to abusive childhoods and homes, clinical depression and psychiatric problems from genetic traits.

Moore spliced together two campaign ads. One actual Bush/Quayle ad, another by an independent expenditure campaign. The Bush/Quayle ad never mentioned Willie Horton, but the other non-Bush/Quayle ad did. Although Moore’s film shows these as one ad, and “Paid for Bush/Quayle” shows at the bottom of the ad, when most of the footage was not.

The Iraqi forces that invaded Kuwait in 1990 never used American tanks and equipment as claimed in the documentary. The tanks and equipment they used were mostly made in the Soviet Union.

The scene with Moore receiving a gun for opening a CD was staged, although not mae clear to the audience and was presented as real which is why this entry is a deliberate goof.  The bank is in Michigan, and Moore is a resident of New York, which has some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation. Under the Gun Control Act (18 U.S. Code sec. 922), a gun transfer to a non-resident of a person’s state is extremely controlled. If a person is not a licensed dealer, which a bank is not, then he cannot transfer a gun to a nonresident at all. He must have a permit to own a rifle or shotgun. So, Moore waited the six-month period it takes to receive this permit, then told the bank that he had covered his New York legal bases, and then ordered the rifle, all the while to film a scene showing how easy it is to get a rifle in the United States.

In the scene where he is interviewing the spokesperson for Lockheed-Martin in the factory producing the huge, silver-colored missiles, Moore makes it sound as if those are missiles with an offensive military use. In fact, those are Titan IV missiles, used by NASA and the USAF to launch satellites into space, not nuclear warheads. True, early Titan missiles (Is & IIs) were nuclear-tipped, but the last of these was phased-out in 1987, and the last time the U.S. produced a brand-new nuclear missile (an LGM-118 “Peacekeeper”) was in 1990.  But even if this were the case, why did Moore connect gun ownership to the military industrial complex?  The controversy over building depleted Uranium shells is not a reasonable argument against the manufacturing of a handgun.  There is no symmetry in the impact these weapons have.

Contrary to the claim found in the documentary, the United States government never endorsed the murder of the President of South Vietnam. It only endorsed his overthrow, not his death.

Regarding the school shooting at Buell Elementary School, Michael Moore claimed no one knew why the little boy shot the little girl (Kayla Rolland). Actually that statement isn’t entirely factual. The little boy who killed Kayla had a history of violence. He had been previously suspended for stabbing another student with a pencil. He actually fought with Kayla the day prior to the shooting. He also once stabbed another child with a knife.  Defining the gun owning community with this isolated incident is disproportionate, unless you live in Nazi Germany.

In a civilized world, guns shouldn’t need to exist.  Humans, though, are very much animals and demonstrate their lack there of to be civilized.  We envy others.  We are jealous.  We can be filled with rage, hate and violence, not just love and compassion.

I once was told that it isn’t people who kill each other, its guns.  And to some extent I agree and see that point.  But your right to have them, is not something that should reflect those who have usually sought guns illegally.  The sad truth is, if you’d bother to look into this for yourself, that those who commit crimes and do it with guns, almost always obtain their guns illegally.  Why take it out on those who are responsible?  Isn’t this culture founded on principles of holding those responsible who actually committed the crimes?  That’s like taking it out on those who you can, because you’re angry.

There is no connection between the gun societies that obtain and use guns legally, and criminals.  Making that association, is not just out of line, but completely illogical.  It is an association that depicts ignorance.

Everyone I know who owns a gun demonstrates responsibility with them.  And all the stereotypes I’ve seen made about gun owners have not just been inaccurate, but completely ludicrous.   But this leads me to my next point.

Your right to have a militia to take back the government if they get out of hand WAS the intent of the 2nd amendment, regardless of whether you support the idea or not.  I for one do not believe that is a reasonable solution or logical way of addressing tyranny.   But like I said, it isn’t about what we think about it now, its a matter of recognizing that this was the point of the 2nd amendment, whether you like it or not.  Lack of understanding this is primary if we are to understand how ridiculous it is to suggest that the 2nd amendment was about hunting, because anyone who knows anything about the founding principles of this country or how this country’s 1st documents were drafted knows that the concepts were all about liberty, your right to do almost anything you wanted without government messing with you as long as you didn’t hurt others, and the idea of having your own community to pursue your own beliefs, not dictate yours on the rest of the country.

The point here is,  I don’t think the debate should be on the 2^nd amendment, but on how guns are obtained and used today.  Your right to own one, is a matter of choice and self-defense.  I think that if we are going to issue them to private mercenary groups, who have now been documented committing crimes and murder with them, and if we are to issue these guns to “government sanctioned militias and law” then you should certainly be allowed to be held to no lesser privilege.  It makes no logical sense to have a double standard.  But why is there a double standard? The Second Amendment was adopted in an environment permeated by an emergent ideology founded upon the view that “To deny arms to some men while allowing them to others was an intolerable denial of freedom…”  Perhaps this double standard is there today because of my next point.

Why are guns associated with bad people and bad things?  Why are people scared of them?  Good guys have guns.  We use guns to save lives all the time as cops.  Why does society associate guns with bad people?  Have you ever noticed that there was a deliberate attempt by New World Order think tanks like RAND Corp. and the Council on Foreign Relations to associate Patriot groups, with hate groups.

Most gun owning societies and militias are about protecting the people and your liberty.  They would never attack us and are not even close to that.  Their about protecting America from tyrannical governments, if we become one.  Now isn’t that interesting.  If that was done today, that would be terrorism.  So see, the 2^nd amendment, although founded on these principles of the people’s right to take back the government by force, is in direct violation of the War on Terror.

Now I am not going to share what I think about this matter, and I don’t believe either are reasonable actions.  I don’t like the war on terror, and I don’t like the use of violence to take back the government.  But both were created by our own politicians.

Seems like a breeding ground for confusion.

But don’t you see what I am saying?   The American Patriots who love the constitution and would NEVER attack us but admire the 2^nd amendment were somehow grouped into a larger description with hate groups like Nazis and the KKK.  Now isn’t that convenient.

Leading up to the ratification of the Second Amendment, English and American political writers stated that society and government rests upon the popular possession of arms, that arms are the primary means by which individuals affirmed their social power and political participation, that arms are necessary for an individual to protect himself from vicious fellow citizens and corrupt authorities, that citizens must be able to defend themselves against rulers and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. Madison, in composing the Second Amendment, merged these two distinct yet related rights–the individual possession of arms and the need for a militia made up of ordinary citizens.

The concept of a universal militia originated in England. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots. This remained relatively unchanged until 1671, when Parliament created a statute that drastically raised the property qualifications needed to possess firearms. In 1686, King James II banned without exception the Protestants’ ability to possess firearms, even while Protestants constituted over 95% of the English subjects. In 1689, with the rise of William of Orange, the English Bill of Rights reversed this by declaring “That the subjects which are Protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.”

Through events like the Oklahoma City Bombing, society under went predictive programming to accept the association that “Patriot Groups” are in the same category as “Nazis.”  But those who have looked into events such as the Oklahoma City Bombing know that elements of the US Federal Government were involved in the incident and got away with it.  Alex Jones, American Patriot and journalist, did a very good job exposing this reality.  Here is the film:

[google -6517776133137328105]

911: The Road to Tyranny

Very clever for the New World Order minions to do this, as it accomplished exactly what they set out to do.  What’s the first thing any tyrannical government does to commit oppression and demonstrate things even as horrific as eugenics.  They take away the guns from their citizens.  Disarming the population is symmetrical with a Big Brother, New World Order, 1984-type environment that requires everyone to be mindless slaves, doing what they want only with permission from their master government and if we disobey, we go to the holding cells.

The growing prison industrial complex is here because of the War on Drugs, which was directly the result of the politicians enforcing the war on drugs.  It is and continues to be well documented that the drug empire is infested with CIA and big government sanctions as well as operations to ensure the drugs get here safe and sound.

This will all be thoroughly explored in the documentary series, Core of Corruption, which establishes this in great length.

Another film that does a very good job at exploring this is American Drug War:

 [google 8740703353227564451]

 American Drug War

Those who go against the New World Order have been made examples of.  Just look at Ruby Ridge or WACO.

Where are we heading as a society?  A dark place, my friends.  A dark place.

Jesse Ventura gave a speech at Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic this last election cycle and here is part 2 of the3 part youtube set where, at around 6 minutes in, he describes it perfectly about the 2nd Amendment:

[youtube Eytv1j0ZwII]