Aimed At Gun Confiscation

After the Second Amendment is gone, which one do you want to give up?

This past March 30th, on the anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady (severely injured during the shooting) and his wife, Sarah, went to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on “large magazines.” The Bradys were in a meeting with Jay Carney when President Obama stopped by and, as Sarah Brady claims, he brought up the gun control issue “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda.” She quoted Obama as saying, “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

Administration officials said that to deal with a resistant Congress, President Obama is considering Executive Orders and agency regulations as a means of pushing through unpopular gun laws – laws which would essentially nullify the Second Amendment. Read it here: HuffPo quotes the administration

Even more alarming is that George Soros’ Center for American Progress has promoted this exact approach to circumvent the Constitution and the Congress. Apparently, not strong believers in a balance of power if it disagrees with their views, their recent report/recommendations stated the following: “The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through these powers should not be underestimated…The upshot: Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still. This administration has a similar opportunity to use available executive authorities while also working with Congress where possible. At the Center for American Progress, we look forward to our nation continuing to make progress.” Read it here: Soros runs the country

Presidents Bush and Clinton used Executive Powers and a case could be made for them having abused them. This President is extreme and extending his powers to do an end-run around the Constitution and the Congress should alarm the most complacent American.

It is evident that President Obama will do whatever he can to avoid having to hear “no” from Congress or SCOTUS for that matter. The balance of powers in this government is in jeopardy, no question. This administration is first looking at ways to gut or destroy the Second Amendment and, if he is re-elected, he will likely succeed.

The Patriot Act allows the government to secure the records of every gun owner. Recently, Rand Paul took a stand against the clause that allowed this invasion. It is a warning sign we should heed.

The problem with gun laws is they are becoming irrational & lead to confiscation:
Please read about gun confiscation in California here: Liberty’s Lifeline

A proposed New York law mandating the microstamping of guns has passed the Assembly and will hopefully not make it through the state Senate. I spoke to a local gun dealer about it and he said, “It’s not only that it’s expensive, it’s not possible to do. We don’t have the equipment. We would ruin the guns. We can’t do it. But the law won’t pass.” I said, “Are you sure it won’t pass?” He said, “No.” I then asked, “So, what you are telling me is, if it passes, all gun dealers in NY will basically be out of business.” He said, “Yes, we can’t do it.” “Would the government then confiscate the guns we have or grandfather them in?” He shrugged.

When a distant relative died a few years back, the police showed up at his door to confiscate his expensive & treasured rifles (he was an avid sportsman). They didn’t give any family member the opportunity to obtain a gun license so they could keep the guns. The government does come for guns.

To understand how dangerous it is to lose the Second Amendment, one only has to go to history, some of it quite recent. In the following video, Carlos describes the loss of freedom that began when Marcos came into power in his country, forcing the registration of guns, and then confiscating them, leaving the people easily victimized. Another person talks about the Mexican government coming to his village and taking the ranchers guns while promising protection. The government thugs then returned and killed the helpless villagers. This video ends by detailing the U.N.’s global gun-free mission. President Obama is a strong advocate of signing a treaty with the U.N. that would make our Second Amendment null and void.


We all know what happened in Germany after they confiscated the guns of the Jews, and only the Jews. That story repeats itself throughout history. I don’t have a problem with gun registration personally and I do think some guns might need to be banned, but the problems arise from the fact that it will never be enough. The anti-gun advocates will never stop and, with each inch, they will demand another.

Does it concern you that our President is conniving under the radar, and ignoring the balance of powers established by our forefathers? Does it concern you that our President wants to subject our Second Amendment to a worldwide panel under the United Nations? It should. As Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” There is no benefit in our being subjugated to the tyranny of the United Nations, a body which puts Iran on a women’s rights council; considers putting Qaddafi on a human rights panel; and wants to put Israel on trial for war crimes when they defend themselves.

Though anti-gun proponents have an argument to rebut every pro-gun claim, the fact is that generally the criminals are not the ones registering their guns. Yes, there are accidents and some people shouldn’t own guns. That’s true of each of our Bill of Rights. A case could be made that the Westboro Baptist Church should be denied freedom of speech; religious fanatics should be denied freedom of religion; some people shouldn’t be allowed to have children; and some people shouldn’t have guns. That doesn’t mean we should give up even one of our rights, not now, not ever. These rights protect us from tyranny and there is no effective argument against that.