The News Media won't tell you this about the Oregon Shooter

Media blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen!

The shooter, Jacob Tyler Roberts, was confronted with an armed citizen, at which time he ran away and shot himself. By the time police arrived on the scene, Roberts was already dead.

Read the entire story here:

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen

Natural Law; Right to self defense Judge Napolitano

Your inalienable individual right was clarified forever by the USSC in 2008.

This is settled law.

Remember, "right wing" A.G. John Ashcroft issued an individual right to keep and bear arms written legal opinion, years before Holders DOJ hatched Operation Fast and Furious?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.[2]
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate (but largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law.

My comment is that all these court cases would be moot and unnecessary if the Constitution was still in full force and effect and understood as it was by the people who wrote it.

Snipers Wanted -

This article appeared just after the Millennium Summit at the end of 1999 and was published at the beginning of 2000,  and is more true now than ever.
The authors are Jim Searcy and Ed Parker

http://www.moresureword.com/guns.htm

When and how are we allowed, morally, to use lethal force to defend our lives, loved ones, and property?
If you have been wondering about where to draw those lines this article will help.

Here is the Catholic view of Self Defense:  From the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917

Ethically the subject of self-defense regards the right of a private person to employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his property or good name. While differing among themselves on some of the more subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, our moralists may be said to be unanimous on the main principles and their application regarding the right of self-defense. The teaching may be summarized as follows:

Defense of life and person

Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one's own life at the expense of the assailant's; one may, out of charity, forego one's right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one's own life to the utmost on account of one's duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity,natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound injustice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.

Defense of property

It is lawful to defend one's material goods even at the expense of the aggressor's life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the aggressor's life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive a neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense.

Honor

Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense of one's material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher order. With regard to honor or reputation, it is not lawful to kill one to prevent an insult or an attack upon our reputation which we believe he intends, or threatens. Nor may we take a life to avenge an insult already offered. The proceeding would not be defense of our honor or reputation, but revenge. Besides, in the general estimation honor and reputation may be sufficiently protected without taking the life of the offender.

And here is the writing of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the subject:
If you have never read St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica then you need to know the format. Saint Thomas always puts forth the arguments AGAINST the premise, then answers them one by one and with a summation.

Article 7. Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?

Objection 1. It would seem that nobody may lawfully kill a man in self-defense. For Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): "I do not agree with the opinion that one may kill a man lest one be killed by him; unless one be a soldier, exercise a public office, so that one does it not for oneself but for others, having the power to do so, provided it be in keeping with one's person." Now he who kills a man in self-defense, kills him lest he be killed by him. Therefore this would seem to be unlawful.

Objection 2. Further, he says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "How are they free from sin in sight of Divine providence, who are guilty of taking a man's life for the sake of these contemptible things?" Now among contemptible things he reckons "those which men may forfeit unwillingly," as appears from the context (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): and the chief of these is the life of the body. Therefore it is unlawful for any man to take another's life for the sake of the life of his own body.

Objection 3. Further, Pope Nicolas [Nicolas I, Dist. 1, can. De his clericis] says in the Decretals: "Concerning the clerics about whom you have consulted Us, those, namely, who have killed a pagan in self-defense, as to whether, after making amends by repenting, they may return to their former state, or rise to a higher degree;know that in no case is it lawful for them to kill any man under any circumstances whatever." Now clerics and laymen are alike bound to observe the moral precepts. Therefore neither is it lawful for laymen to kill anyone in self-defense.

Objection 4. Further, murder is a more grievous sin than fornication or adultery. Now nobody may lawfully commit simple fornication or adultery or any other mortal sin in order to save his own life; since the spiritual life is to be preferred to the life of the body. Therefore no man may lawfully take another's life in self-defense in order to save his own life.

Objection 5. Further, if the tree be evil, so is the fruit, according to Matthew 7:17. Now self-defense itself seems to be unlawful, according to Romans 12:19: "Not defending [Douay: 'revenging'] yourselves, my dearly beloved." Therefore its result, which is the slaying of a man, is also unlawful.

On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life.

I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted from Augustine refer to the case when one man intends to kill another to save himself from death. The passage quoted in the Second Objection is to be understood in the same sense. Hence he says pointedly, "for the sake of these things," whereby he indicates the intention. This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply to Objection 3. Irregularity results from the act though sinless of taking a man's life, as appears in the case of a judge who justly condemns a man to death. For this reason a cleric, though he kill a man in self-defense, is irregular, albeit he intends not to kill him, but to defend himself.

Reply to Objection 4. The act of fornication or adultery is not necessarily directed to the preservation of one's own life, as is the act whence sometimes results the taking of a man's life.

Reply to Objection 5. The defense forbidden in this passage is that which comes from revengeful spite. Hence a gloss says: "Not defending yourselves--that is, not striking your enemy back."

Here is the Catholic view of Just War:  From the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917

War, in its juridical sense, is a contention carried on by force of arms between sovereign states, or communities having in this regard the right of states. The term is often used for civil strife, sedition, rebellion properly so called, or even for the undertaking of a State to put down by force organized bodies of outlaws, and in fact there is no other proper word for the struggle as such; but as these are not juridically in the same class with contentions of force between sovereign states, the jurist may not so use the term.

However, a people in revolution, in the rare instance of an effort to re-establish civil government which has practically vanished from the community except in name, or to vitalize constitutional rights reserved specifically or residuarily to the people, is conceded to be in like juridical case with a State, as far as protecting its fundamental rights by force of arms. 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

John Locke on the right of revolution:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s2.html

The arbitrary use of authority is called tyranny. Such is the tyranny of an absolute monarch, of a council, of a class, or of a majority. The liberty of the subject is based on the doctrine that the State is not omnipotent. Legally omnipotent every State must be, but not morally. A legal enactment may be immoral, and then it cannot in conscience be obeyed; or it may be ultra vires, beyond the competence of the authority that enacts it, in which case compliance with the law is not a matter of obedience, but of prudence. In either case the law is tyrannical, and "a tyrannical law, not being according to reason, is not, absolutely speaking, a law, but rather a perversion of law" (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-II.92.1 ad 4). Man is not all citizen. He is a member, a part of the State, and something else besides. "Man is not subservient to the civil community to the extent of his whole self, all that he is and all that he has" (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I-II.21.4 ad 3). To say nothing of his eternal interests in his relations with his Maker, man has even in this life his domestic interests in the bosom of his family, his intellectual and artistic interests, none of which can be called political interests. Social and political life is not the whole of human life. Man is not the servant of the State in his every action. The State, the majority, or the despot, may demand of the individual more than he is bound to give. Were human society a conventional arrangement, were man, being perfectly well off in isolation from his fellows, to agree by way of freak to live in community with them, then we could assign no antecedent limits to civil authority. Civil authority would be simply what was bargained for and prescribed in the arbitrary compact which made civil society. As it is, civil authority is a natural means to a natural end and is checked by that end, in accordance with the Aristotelean principle that "the end in view sets limits to the means" (Aristotle, Politics, I, 9). The immediate end of civil authority is well set forth by Francisco Suárez (De legibus, LII, xi, 7) as "the natural happiness of the perfect, or self-sufficient, human community, and the happiness of individuals as they are members of such a community, that they may live therein peaceably and justly, with a sufficiency of goods for the preservation and comfort of their bodily life, and with so much moral rectitude as is necessary for this external peace and happiness". Happiness is an attribute of individuals. Individuals are not made happy by authority, but authority secures to them that tranquillity, that free hand for helping themselves, that restful enjoyment of their own just winnings, which is one of the conditions of happiness. Nor does authority make men virtuous, except according to that rough-hewn, outline virtue, which is called "social virtue", and consists mainly of justice. When the ancients spoke of "virtue" being the concern of the State, they meant justice and efficiency. Neither the virtue nor the happiness of individuals is cared for by the State except "as they are members of the civil community". In this respect, civil differs from domestic, or paternal, authority. The father cares for the members of his household one by one, singly and individually. The State cares for its members collectively, and for the individual only in his collective aspect. Hence it follows that the power of life and death is inherent in the State, not in the family. A man is hanged for the common good of the rest, never for his own good.


Liberalism Condemned:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm

Ted Nugent on guns.

I didn't know that Ted Nugent is on the board of the NRA. Listen to what he has to say about self defense with a gun.

DISARMING AMERICA -

By Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow, Ret. 46 Years in Law Enforcement June 27, 2010 NewsWithViews.com

A determined campaign is being waged in the United States that is perpetuated by the Godless humanists who endeavor, at the leading of Satan the greatest criminal mind in the Universe, to pave the way to a sheer control of the people and to establish the United States as a constituent of a one-world order.

This campaign is directed at a disarming of the people that they might be deprived of the tools to resist or challenge tyrannical totalitarian governance. But, hold on you might exclaim - this is not a totalitarian state, it is a Constitutional Republic. The heck you say, then how is it that our utilitarian communist president, Barack Obama, has been able to, in eighteen short months, accomplish the expropriation of private capital and industry and to establish a now nearly autonomous dictatorship under his despotic control? How is it that he has been able to assemble what amounts to a communist politburo via the unsanctioned appointments of an assemblage of communist progressives with an ascendancy over the will of the people? This could only take place under a totalitarian system of government.

The United States as one of the last remaining societies where citizens have, by established constitutional law, the right to possess and bear arms must be dealt with by the communist/socialist internationalists if they are to exercise an iron control over the peoples of the world that they might achieve their goal of a one-world system of government.

The right to self-protection in the United States must be disabled to eliminate what the gun-banners perceive to be a bad example of independence that might encourage the peoples of other nations, that have already been effectively disarmed and made compliant to dictatorial rule, to rebel against the suppression that is upon them. This makes plain and comprehensible the interminable meddling into the policies and prerogatives of the United States by the United Nations, that precursor to the satanically controlled and unified economic, political, and religious system of world government that looms on the horizon.

Currently there is an urgent and hysterical drive to exert coercive pressure on the various legislative bodies in this country to enact unconstitutional legislation that prohibits the ownership or possession of legitimate firearms.

ROLLING OUT THE POLITICAL BOSSES

There is a constant and steady drumbeat for the banning of firearms from internationalists such as George Soros the multibillionaire who in reality looks like a caricature drawn by a political cartoonist and multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg the bombastic and irksome pain in the behind who thinks that his money entitles him to inveigh against the prerogatives of independent Americans. These and other politicos of the socialist governments of the larger municipalities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco conspire to seize and destroy the personal property of law-abiding Americans, i.e. their lawfully purchased firearms. Those such as Soros and Bloomberg, because of their media generated false iconicity, lead the way for the lesser personalities and government entities that drag along behind them sucking up the destructive con-trails of these big boys who churn up the air with their political chicanery.

Know this, the gun banners are not married to the Constitution or to the principles thereof. They are socialists and advocates for a totalistic control of the people by the state, and as such they view the Constitution as a tedious obstacle to the implementation of their progressive agenda. These are not indwelled by the truth or a conscience nor are they committed to playing by the rules; they are of a perverse integrity and will exercise every cunning and deceitful device to realize their inimical goals and aspirations.

Like Satan himself, they are patient and will often follow a surreptitious course of taking incremental bites in the consuming of the whole hog.

DO IT INCREMENTALLY

“The only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation…Charles Krauthammer (columnist), ‘Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet’ The Washington Post”

Large gun rights organizations such as the NRA, of which I am neither a detractor nor an opponent, too often fall into the cunningly laid traps of the anti-gunners. By negotiating with such and compromising on the immutable principles of the Second Amendment, they play into the hand of the gun-haters and help to enable an incremental chipping away of the integrity and inviolability of the Second Amendment.

By their very involvement with the perverse proponents of gun control they provide credibility to the gun control advocators’ contention that gun ownership is a politically granted right and not an absolute uninfringeable right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

When will these who purport to protect the inalienable right of the people to own and bear arms wake up and stand against the political encroachment upon the Second Amendment? There is no mutual ground or area of compromise. Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people. Mitigating by political barter the inviolate and intrinsic authority of the Second Amendment is unacceptable.

The NRA, and any other gun rights advocate that thinks that the preservation of the Second Amendment can be accomplished through negotiation would do well to remember that when negotiating with a snake they can expect to be bitten.

One must keep in mind that political snakes hate the Constitution and the freedoms that it generates. They especially hate the Bill of Rights, the tattered vestiges of which stand in the way of an absolute control of the people and stymies their endeavors for a long sought worldwide satanic kingdom.

THUS SAYETH THE LORD

“And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it , and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” (Luke 22: 35-38)
“Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.


Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11)

Many contend that the words of Jesus were metaphorically delivered and that He was not really telling them to buy or use swords, but rather He was simply using the metaphor of a sword to describe the current crisis. And when the disciples took his words literally ('See, Lord, here are two swords'), Jesus simply drops the subject by saying 'That is enough'.

This interpretation soothes the spirit of the pacifist Christians, but as is so often the case these fail to consult Old Testament scripture so as to examine these words, spoken by Jesus, in the light of the actions and the words of the God of the Old Testament.

The verses of John one thru four tell us that Jesus (The Word) was with God in the beginning and that He was God. These verses further inform us that it was Jesus who created all that was created and that He was - and is - the giver of life. The Bible further makes it clear that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He is never changing and everlastingly the same. To suggest or infer that Jesus who is God, was God, and will always be God, had a change of character is simply wrong and subverts God’s word.

Now, we know that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament and also the God of the New Testament, and that he is ceaselessly the same and ever just and holy. We also know if we have studied the Old Testament that God (Jesus) did command the use of the sword, and on more than one occasion. He advocated the use of the sword to prevent the adulteration of His people by the pagan idolatry of the gentiles. And He commanded the use of the sword that Israel might secure the covenant lands. The sword was used by Nehemiah to protect and safeguard the remnant that rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. Dear reader if you will read your Bible you will find other examples of the use of weapons that were ordained by God. We can’t be selective and discount an entire testament of the Bible to justify our own interpretations of the meaning of scripture.

In respect to the words of Jesus in regard to the selling of the cloak to buy a sword we must take a literal meaning from His words. His disciples were armed and He knew that they were armed. There is not a shred of evidence that He censored them for doing what He had commanded them to do or that the swords they carried were for an allegorical affect. Jesus mildly rebuked Peter’s use of the sword only because it interfered with God’s plan that He be arrested, tried by the heathen, and executed upon the cross for the expiation of our sins.

When it comes time to beat our weapons into plowshares, Christ will let us know. But, He will not do so until Satan’s evil has been conquered and we can dwell in peace and safety. Until that time we have an inalienable right to maintain firearms for the limited use of self-defense, recreation, and for the procurement of food, and this with God’s blessing.

AND SO IT IS, THAT

The Second Amendment was written into the Constitution for the very reason that the new world gun banners so virulently hate it, to ensure protection against tyrannical governance.

No despotic state was ever established without the dismantling of the right of the people to defend themselves - by use of arms - against a tyranny of the state.

Now I admonish you Mr. And Mrs. America. If you possess legally acquired firearms relinquish them to no one, not to your local government, not to the courts at any level, and most certainly not to the federal government. If you have deliberately and knowingly committed a crime you have made your bed and will have subjected yourself to the undisciplined and now unbridled authority of the state. There is no help for you. But, if you have been charged with a fabricated and blatantly specious malfeasance, as so often happens, hide your guns and immediately engage legal counsel. Today a modicum of justice still exists, but it evaporates at a rapid pace.

Firearms owners comprise a sizeable segment of our society; sixty percent of the people oppose the confiscation of firearms. If, as a collective, this group of individuals will stand solid in stubborn refusal to submit to a government confiscation of their firearms, they will have challenged such an unconstitutional maneuver and done much to restore some of the authority of the Constitution that has been eroded by the agents for socialist totalitarianism.


AND FINALLY DEAR PEOPLE

Love the Lord, Stand for Justice, and Keep the Faith. Your reward will be great.

Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.

Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals.

E-Mail: jimr@orangecitycomm.net

Web-Site: http://www.sheriffjimonline.com/

AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE COMING, & THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU!

By Andrew C. Wallace

December 13, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The title is a powerful statement by Pat Caddell, a Democrat, and a Senior Advisor to the Carter Administration, that he made on Fox News, 12-8-09. Caddell also stated that “Americans feel that the future is slipping away from their children, that they’re losing the future. The politicians don’t care (what the people want), they think the American people are sheep that they can run over, and that’s the issue that is going to be tested. They have nothing but contempt for the very people they are supposed to represent in the greatest nation on earth”. Mr. Caddell further stated (not his exact words) that never in his long lifetime had he ever seen such a large majority of Americans from both parties united in anger and opposition to elected officials. My observation is the same.

Mr. Caddell is a brave man and a true patriot because he knows that the Marxist usurpers in our government will not tolerate peaceful dissent of any kind. Retaliation by their Union and Community Organizer thugs has been brutal, accompanied by media lies to discredit anyone who questions the Marxist traitors.
Both political parties are run by Marxist traitors who take their orders from the same large corporations, and tax free foundations controlled by the super rich in return for money and favorable media coverage. Every unconstitutional law such as Health Care, Cap and trade, Stimulus, Tarp and corporate takeovers is to enrich the super rich and to reduce us to impoverished slaves.
Political Correctness is the Marxist Judas Goat. They operate our government as a giant criminal enterprise to prey on the people of the United States and the world.

Officials who pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, while ignoring constitutional laws and their oath to the constitution, are the most contemptible of all traitors. I hate these traitors as much as I do child molesters, and that is not being a racist. But, as an Oath Keeper and a Three Percenter, I will refuse any unlawful government orders to harm the people and I will not initiate or encourage violence against the traitors in government except in self defense.

Read the whole article here:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wallace/andrew122.htm

Andrew C. Wallace is a former Kentucky State Trooper, Kentucky Native, Korean War Veteran, Commercial Pilot in Alaska, University of Kentucky Undergraduate in Business, Four years of Graduate School in Economics and Marketing at University of Kentucky and University of Iowa., Assistant Professor, Thirty years as Director of Marketing Firm developing and implementing national Marketing programs for manufacturers and now retired doing research and writing.


E-Mail: natlmktg@gte.net

Whatever you do, DON'T GIVE UP YOUR GUNS!

We received these comments and the video by email this morning. --------

Here's a great video on gun control. This people gave up and then cried about it. Look at all these gutless men who, had they stood together, may have stopped what happened. They did regret not standing when they had a chance. Will this be our fate too? See any parallels between the bully boys of Europe on gun control and the fear instilled in the majority of people living in Lincoln County? A corrupt minority is controlling an honest majority because the majority is allowing it..

Thank our Creator for ladies like you, and the others in Lincoln County Watch, who do have courage. Where would the county be without people like you.


This will happen in Amerika if we don't take a stand against gun control!



If your guns go away, so does your freedom!

England's increasingly repressive firearms laws often are praised by those who would restrict the American right to arms, so it is important to realize that those firearms laws, which now prohibit the private possession of handguns, rest heavily on one foundation--the British gun owner licensing system. The right to keep and bear arms had been alive in England for eight centuries when Parliament enacted the Pistols Act of 1903. The Act, which prohibited the sale of pistols to minors and felons, also dictated that pistols could be sold only to those who possessed a gun license. Since the license could be obtained at a post office with only the payment of a fee, and since no license was required to keep a pistol solely in the home, there was no opposition. But within a few short years, the licensing system had moved from the post office to the police station. Suddenly, Britons who wanted to own handguns--or rifles--had to prove they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit. Shotguns were considered "sporting" and were exempted from licensing requirements until 1967.


Anti-gun lobbyists in the United States have called for a "needs-based licensing" system and some politicians have lined up to do their bidding.

Is licensing gun owners a good idea? After all, "we license people to drive cars don't we?" If requiring gun owners to obtain a government license seems like a harmless idea to you, you may want to know about "Firearms Form 101." That's the "Application For A Firearms Certificate" that must be filled out by Britons in order to purchase a rifle or muzzleloading handgun. A separate form is required for a "shotgun certificate."

Section 27 of the Firearms Act of 1968 (as amended by the 1997 Act) requires a chief officer of the Police Firearms Licensing Department to be satisfied that the applicant is "fit to be entrusted with a firearm." (Emphasis added) As the applicant, you must provide: * Your home address for the last three years. * Your occupation and business address. * Information about previous convictions, including traffic violations. * Information about any history of Epilepsy. * Information about past treatment for drug use, depression or nervous disorders. * The name of your doctor, and permission for the police to search your medical records to obtain "factual details" about your medical history. * A list of the firearms you already own, including caliber, type, maker's name and serial number. * A list of the ammunition you already own, including caliber and quantity. * A list of the firearms you wish to purchase, stating the reason for wanting to purchase them and where you plan on shooting or hunting with them. * A list of the maximum amount of ammunition you wish to possess at any one time, by caliber. * A list of the maximum amount of ammunition you plan to purchase at any one time, by caliber. * An address where the guns will be stored, for possible future inspection. * Information about whether you have previously held a firearms certificate, or a shotgun certificate. * A letter signed by the secretary of your shooting club or each landowner where you plan to hunt attesting to the fact that you have permission to shoot at those locations. * Four passport size photos of yourself. * A fee of L56 (approximately $90).

As an applicant, you must also designate two "referees" who will fill out a reference form regarding your character. This form will never be shown to you even though it weighs heavily in the final decision to approve or deny the application. The "referees" must: * Have known you for at least the last two years. * Not be a member of your family, a firearms dealer, a police officer or a police employee. * Be of "good character." * Sign the application form declaring that it has been answered truthfully. * Sign and date the back of one of your passport photos attesting that it is an accurate representation of you at that time. * Explain in what capacity they have known you. * Indicate if they are members of a shooting club, and if so their license number and role in the club. * Provide their "opinion as to the applicant's suitability to possess firearms." * Provide information on your personal history, including any history of emotional problems, mental or physical disabilities and explain how knowledge of the information was gained. * Explain any difficulties you have with members of your family which "may give cause for concern given that a firearm or ammunition may be available in the household." * Explain their knowledge of your experience with firearms. * Explain their knowledge of your attitude toward firearms. * Be subjected to a background check and allow personal information to be held on a police computer.

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

In Amerika, Judges are already using orders of protection to deny gun ownership to perfectly law abiding people who have never been violent, on the say so of others without proof of any wrongdoing whatsoever, and as a political weapon against their political opposition. Sheriffs are denying concealed carry permits on the basis of orders of protection by judges on the same basis without any proof of any wrongdoing. These so called "justice" courts are not a court of record. The JPs seem to think an order of protection is the solution to everything. They seem to think they can slap an order of protection on anyone without requiring the accusing party to prove anything being alleged. The accusing party usually enjoys the "protection" of the court without being required to submit any evidence to obtain the order of protection. The accused party is usually not allowed to bring witnesses in the court room for hearings on these matters. Evidence in favor of the accused is ignored by judges and orders of protection are granted on the say so of the accusing party alone.
Judges who make these kinds of decisions need to be thrown out of office in the next election.
People who believe in the rule of law, and the maxim of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" need to be elected to take their place. The Grand Jury needs to be re-established on a permanent basis to investigate corruption in government, especially in the Judicial branch.
DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR GUNS.

LEGAL NOTICE: The Authors specifically invoke the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, without prejudice, on this website. The information posted on this website is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America. Images, text and logic are copyright protected. ALL rights are explicitly reserved without prejudice, and no part of this website may be reproduced unless by written consent. You hereby have written consent to post any individual post from this website containing this copyright to any other blog or email only if you post the whole and unaltered article including this copyright, and give proper credit to the author, and a link back to this blog at http://www.paulstramer.net/. This applies only to articles written by Paul Stramer. ©2005-2009 by Montana Business Communications (PDS) All rights remain in force. Removing this notice forfeits all rights to recourse. Copyright strictly enforced © The videos are third party and not covered by this legal notice.

The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is sweeping the Nation.

If you Google for "firearms freedom act" you now get over 100,000 hits.

The FFA concept is getting a LOT of news coverage and a lot of chatter on the Internet. MSSA's domain about the FFA movement (firearmsfreedomact.com) is getting lots of hits too. It is now the first listing on this Google search. In addition to many visits from folks in the U.S., the site stats say that in October this site has had visits from Internet surfers in Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Malaysia, Norway, Greece, Jordan, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Seychelles, Brazil, Switzerland, and Pakistan. Interesting!

Read more on the FFA Website here:  http://firearmsfreedomact.com/