Red James Cash
Banned
- Aug 20, 2009
- 12,824
- 7,899
- Detector(s) used
- Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Obama Executive Orders on Guns Would Spark Mass Resistance
Alex Newman
New American
January 11, 2013
As the Obama administration openly vows to use unconstitutional “executive orders” to further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, gun rights activists, members of the law enforcement community, military personnel and others are pledging to resist. Everything from an armed uprising and nationwide civil disobedience to legal means of resistance like the courts and nullification is being openly discussed online and even in the establishment media.
“The president is going to act,” pledged Vice President Joe Biden, who is leading an administration task force to further restrict gun rights in the wake of the Newtown massacre. “Executive order, executive action can be taken, we haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members, as well as legislative action we believe is required.”
The Constitution, of course, reserves all legislative powers to Congress — not to mention the specific prohibition against infringements on gun rights contained in the Second Amendment. But disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, who is helping develop the “executive action” plot, was caught in the 1990s on video calling for a tax-funded campaign to “brainwash” people against guns. He was also held in criminal contempt of Congress for lying about Operation Fast and Furious, which saw the Justice Department providing thousands of powerful guns to Mexican drug cartels through the ATF.
Appearing on CNN, Gun Owners of America chief Larry Pratt (pictured) said assaults on the Second Amendment imposed unilaterally by a lawless president would call the legitimacy of the federal government into question. Noting that Obama has already been ruling by decree in realms where he “has no authority” and that Biden is openly discussing “executive action” to deal with firearms, the no-compromise gun rights activist said any such unconstitutional presidential decrees infringing on the Second Amendment would have dire implications.
“That, I think, changes the game and throws into question the legitimacy of the federal government,” Pratt told rabid anti-gun CNN host Piers Morgan, a Brit who has come under fire in recent weeks for his oftentimes disrespectful and hostile attitude toward defenders of the Second Amendment. “I would advise Mr. Obama to consider what happened to [King] George the third when he was doing similar things against the American colonists.”
Meanwhile, former Congressman and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, who has millions of ardent supporters across America, suggested to radio host Alex Jones that “executive orders” purporting to ban guns may well spark a second American revolution. Jones himself made similar remarks in a heated interview this week on CNN as well, saying an assault on gun rights would lead to another revolution, drawing praise from his legions of followers but controversy in some conservative and libertarian circles.
During the interview, Ron Paul pointed out the hypocrisy of trying to infringe on the rights of Americans due to the actions of a murderer even as the Obama administration continues killing children all over the world using drones. “It should go without saying that he’s gone way too far. It also should go without saying that he’s acting with the use of illegal violence, and he becomes the violent person,” Rep. Paul explained. “These are dictatorial moves; they are very, very dangerous.”
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Still, he did not believe Americans were likely to relinquish their firearms anytime soon. “I don’t think the American people will [turn in their semi-automatic guns],” the doctor-turned lawmaker from Texas continued. “I’ve always assumed that the line in the sand may well be drawn if the federal agent marches in unannounced and they say, ‘give me your gun and give me your gold.’ I don’t think they’ll be able to do that calmly. I think the American people will highly resent it and resist.”
Among those promising to resist, many have vowed to use the courts or nullification of unconstitutional federal laws to stop the assault. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials at the state and local level all across America are currently exploring legal options to block further infringements on Americans’ rights.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, for example, citing recent Supreme Court rulings, said the proposals being discussed in Washington are unconstitutional. If any were to be approved, the feisty chief law enforcement officer vowed to take the federal infringements to court and have them thrown out. “I’ve been to the Supreme Court twice,” Abbott said in a recent interview with 1200 WOAI. “I can tell you that these laws that try to restrict our gun rights violate the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on this issue twice.”
Other law enforcement officials, like numerous state legislatures, are pursuing nullification in an effort to void any unconstitutional statutes within their jurisdictions. Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania, Police Chief Mark Kessler, for example, is asking local lawmakers to adopt the “Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance,” which cites the state and U.S. constitutions to invalidate any further assaults on the unalienable rights of residents in his community.
“Hopefully this will spread like fire throughout the country, and the people will stand up and say, you know what, enough is enough, and under the Tenth Amendment, which grants the power of nullification of unconstitutional laws, we’re going to recognize this as unconstitutional, we’re not going to enforce it, we’re going to make sure this doesn’t happen,” Chief Kessler told The New American in an interview, adding that the Second Amendment was clear. “We want to do this peacefully, we don’t want any kind of violence whatsoever — I’m totally against that — I just want to see a peaceful resolution to this. And under the Tenth Amendment, hopefully we can accomplish this through the nullification process.”
Elected county sheriffs are also expected to be on the front line in any potential showdown between an out-of-control executive branch and the American people. Former Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack already has experience protecting residents in his jurisdiction from federal lawlessness. And he says that as the top law enforcement officers in their jurisdictions — with power to arrest federal agents for violating the law — sheriffs have a duty to protect the people and their liberties.
“The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it,” he told WorldNetDaily in a recent interview. “Out of 200 sheriffs with whom I’ve met, I’ve only had one give me a wishy-washy answer. That one said he would try to take the federal government to court. Most of them have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control. They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation…. If the federal government wants to start a new Civil War, all they need to do is go ahead with gun confiscation.”
Gun Owners of America chief Pratt agreed with Mack. “The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” he explained. “This is a defensible idea. He can deputize people to serve since they are the ones who voted for him to represent them. A lot of citizens would stand up for their Second Amendment rights if they were protected by the sheriff.”
Countless other analysts and activists have also warned that Americans would be engaging in peaceful resistance — refusing to register their firearms regardless of any new, unconstitutional statutes or executive edicts purporting to require it, for example. A group of law enforcement and military personnel known as Oath Keepers has all of its members pledge to uphold their oaths to the Constitution and never enforce unconstitutional orders — including assaults on the right to keep and bear arms.
The people themselves will almost certainly resist, too, insist experts. “The anti-gun hysteria and other crapola coming out of Washington could lead to massive civil disobedience throughout the United States,” gun rights lobbyist and former National Rifle Association editor John Snyder was quoted as saying in the Law Enforcement Examiner. “They’re out of touch. It is time for the House of Representatives to slash the ATF budget or eliminate the agency.”
More than a few commentators have taken it a step further, promising armed resistance in the event federal authorities ever attempt to confiscate firearms — an unlikely prospect, for now at least. In a blog post that quickly went viral and appeared on countless sites around the internet, one gun rights activist even argued that citizens have a constitutional duty to resist any potential confiscation effort in the future by using force.
“If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty,” wrote Dean Garrison with The D.C. Clothesline in a controversial blog post that has since gone viral online, garnering hundreds of thousands of readers, maybe millions. “To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.”
Of course, nobody wants to see violence, as virtually every prominent gun rights activist and supporter of the Constitution has said on numerous occasions. However, judging from the increasingly brazen assaults on the Second Amendment and the defiant attitude among firearm owners, who are buying weapons in record numbers, it has become clear that any and all efforts to further infringe on gun rights will be met with fierce opposition. First, political and legal means will be used. If those resistance strategies become futile, though, where this conflict might lead remains a matter of serious concern.
Alex Newman
New American
January 11, 2013
As the Obama administration openly vows to use unconstitutional “executive orders” to further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, gun rights activists, members of the law enforcement community, military personnel and others are pledging to resist. Everything from an armed uprising and nationwide civil disobedience to legal means of resistance like the courts and nullification is being openly discussed online and even in the establishment media.
“The president is going to act,” pledged Vice President Joe Biden, who is leading an administration task force to further restrict gun rights in the wake of the Newtown massacre. “Executive order, executive action can be taken, we haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members, as well as legislative action we believe is required.”
The Constitution, of course, reserves all legislative powers to Congress — not to mention the specific prohibition against infringements on gun rights contained in the Second Amendment. But disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, who is helping develop the “executive action” plot, was caught in the 1990s on video calling for a tax-funded campaign to “brainwash” people against guns. He was also held in criminal contempt of Congress for lying about Operation Fast and Furious, which saw the Justice Department providing thousands of powerful guns to Mexican drug cartels through the ATF.
Appearing on CNN, Gun Owners of America chief Larry Pratt (pictured) said assaults on the Second Amendment imposed unilaterally by a lawless president would call the legitimacy of the federal government into question. Noting that Obama has already been ruling by decree in realms where he “has no authority” and that Biden is openly discussing “executive action” to deal with firearms, the no-compromise gun rights activist said any such unconstitutional presidential decrees infringing on the Second Amendment would have dire implications.
“That, I think, changes the game and throws into question the legitimacy of the federal government,” Pratt told rabid anti-gun CNN host Piers Morgan, a Brit who has come under fire in recent weeks for his oftentimes disrespectful and hostile attitude toward defenders of the Second Amendment. “I would advise Mr. Obama to consider what happened to [King] George the third when he was doing similar things against the American colonists.”
Meanwhile, former Congressman and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, who has millions of ardent supporters across America, suggested to radio host Alex Jones that “executive orders” purporting to ban guns may well spark a second American revolution. Jones himself made similar remarks in a heated interview this week on CNN as well, saying an assault on gun rights would lead to another revolution, drawing praise from his legions of followers but controversy in some conservative and libertarian circles.
During the interview, Ron Paul pointed out the hypocrisy of trying to infringe on the rights of Americans due to the actions of a murderer even as the Obama administration continues killing children all over the world using drones. “It should go without saying that he’s gone way too far. It also should go without saying that he’s acting with the use of illegal violence, and he becomes the violent person,” Rep. Paul explained. “These are dictatorial moves; they are very, very dangerous.”
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Still, he did not believe Americans were likely to relinquish their firearms anytime soon. “I don’t think the American people will [turn in their semi-automatic guns],” the doctor-turned lawmaker from Texas continued. “I’ve always assumed that the line in the sand may well be drawn if the federal agent marches in unannounced and they say, ‘give me your gun and give me your gold.’ I don’t think they’ll be able to do that calmly. I think the American people will highly resent it and resist.”
Among those promising to resist, many have vowed to use the courts or nullification of unconstitutional federal laws to stop the assault. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials at the state and local level all across America are currently exploring legal options to block further infringements on Americans’ rights.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, for example, citing recent Supreme Court rulings, said the proposals being discussed in Washington are unconstitutional. If any were to be approved, the feisty chief law enforcement officer vowed to take the federal infringements to court and have them thrown out. “I’ve been to the Supreme Court twice,” Abbott said in a recent interview with 1200 WOAI. “I can tell you that these laws that try to restrict our gun rights violate the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on this issue twice.”
Other law enforcement officials, like numerous state legislatures, are pursuing nullification in an effort to void any unconstitutional statutes within their jurisdictions. Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania, Police Chief Mark Kessler, for example, is asking local lawmakers to adopt the “Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance,” which cites the state and U.S. constitutions to invalidate any further assaults on the unalienable rights of residents in his community.
“Hopefully this will spread like fire throughout the country, and the people will stand up and say, you know what, enough is enough, and under the Tenth Amendment, which grants the power of nullification of unconstitutional laws, we’re going to recognize this as unconstitutional, we’re not going to enforce it, we’re going to make sure this doesn’t happen,” Chief Kessler told The New American in an interview, adding that the Second Amendment was clear. “We want to do this peacefully, we don’t want any kind of violence whatsoever — I’m totally against that — I just want to see a peaceful resolution to this. And under the Tenth Amendment, hopefully we can accomplish this through the nullification process.”
Elected county sheriffs are also expected to be on the front line in any potential showdown between an out-of-control executive branch and the American people. Former Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack already has experience protecting residents in his jurisdiction from federal lawlessness. And he says that as the top law enforcement officers in their jurisdictions — with power to arrest federal agents for violating the law — sheriffs have a duty to protect the people and their liberties.
“The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it,” he told WorldNetDaily in a recent interview. “Out of 200 sheriffs with whom I’ve met, I’ve only had one give me a wishy-washy answer. That one said he would try to take the federal government to court. Most of them have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control. They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation…. If the federal government wants to start a new Civil War, all they need to do is go ahead with gun confiscation.”
Gun Owners of America chief Pratt agreed with Mack. “The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” he explained. “This is a defensible idea. He can deputize people to serve since they are the ones who voted for him to represent them. A lot of citizens would stand up for their Second Amendment rights if they were protected by the sheriff.”
Countless other analysts and activists have also warned that Americans would be engaging in peaceful resistance — refusing to register their firearms regardless of any new, unconstitutional statutes or executive edicts purporting to require it, for example. A group of law enforcement and military personnel known as Oath Keepers has all of its members pledge to uphold their oaths to the Constitution and never enforce unconstitutional orders — including assaults on the right to keep and bear arms.
The people themselves will almost certainly resist, too, insist experts. “The anti-gun hysteria and other crapola coming out of Washington could lead to massive civil disobedience throughout the United States,” gun rights lobbyist and former National Rifle Association editor John Snyder was quoted as saying in the Law Enforcement Examiner. “They’re out of touch. It is time for the House of Representatives to slash the ATF budget or eliminate the agency.”
More than a few commentators have taken it a step further, promising armed resistance in the event federal authorities ever attempt to confiscate firearms — an unlikely prospect, for now at least. In a blog post that quickly went viral and appeared on countless sites around the internet, one gun rights activist even argued that citizens have a constitutional duty to resist any potential confiscation effort in the future by using force.
“If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty,” wrote Dean Garrison with The D.C. Clothesline in a controversial blog post that has since gone viral online, garnering hundreds of thousands of readers, maybe millions. “To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.”
Of course, nobody wants to see violence, as virtually every prominent gun rights activist and supporter of the Constitution has said on numerous occasions. However, judging from the increasingly brazen assaults on the Second Amendment and the defiant attitude among firearm owners, who are buying weapons in record numbers, it has become clear that any and all efforts to further infringe on gun rights will be met with fierce opposition. First, political and legal means will be used. If those resistance strategies become futile, though, where this conflict might lead remains a matter of serious concern.
I would just love to see you thrown out of office, where do I sign a petition to remove you? I will not be turning in anything.....I think Impeachment is now long past due!
What happens if the Flu kills more people then guns?
