Sheep Media

The Truth About Disinformation

2nd Amendement

California Congressman Threatens “Nukes” If Americans Don’t Hand Over Their Guns

By

Just days after taking back the House, a Democratic Congressmen has proposed outlawing “military-style semi-automatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution.

In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons – and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”
As NBC News reports, this is a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms; as in the past, Democrats and gun safety groups have carefully resisted proposals that could be interpreted as ‘gun confiscation’, a concept gun rights groups have often invoked as part of a slippery slope argument against more modest proposals like universal background checks.

And sure enough Swalwell’s egotistical over-reach – going full “Australia” – prompted anger across social media. But it was one particular thread that caught our eye…

John Cardillo, ‘America Talks Live’ host on Newsmax, tweeted in response: “Make no mistake, Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state. These people are dangerously obsessed with power.”


Which prompted a further response from Joe Biggs, a combat vet, “So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.”


To which Rep. Swalwell decided to reply – in a not tyrannical-sounding way at all… “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

“So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow,” Biggs responded.

“Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law,” Swalwell tweeted back.

And after the furor exploded, Swalwell quickly resorted to the “it was sarcasm” excuse.

*  *  *

Now the question is – who will Twitter ban? The conservative-leaning 2nd Amendment-protector raising his ‘social media’ above the pulpit; or the liberal politician who is threatening to unleash nukes on domestic soil in order to ensure the citizenry follow his demands and hand over their means of defense?

To be continued…

Source: Zero Hedge

Trump And Democrats Agree To Disarm The Public

By

U.S. President Donald Trump has flip-flopped from wanting to arm teachers to now siding with Democrats who  want to confiscate and ban semi-automatic firearms, violating the Second Amendment of individuals deemed “dangerous” by the government.

In a recent lawmaker conference, Trump proposed confiscation of guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates their right to due process, The Hill reported.

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

Trump was responding to comments by Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more means to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons when he made the disturbing comments against liberty and freedom.

“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,” Trump responded.

It is worth highlighting Trump’s statements “from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous.” Who determines who is dangerous? According to a recent manual by the DoD “homegrown violent extremists” isn’t clearly defined, as Activist Post reported last year.

Further, under the Obama administration, the DHS didn’t hesitate to call those who believe in conspiracy theories potential right-wing terrorists, stating the following points might make someone a terrorist in a study by the University of Maryland, which was funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security, according to PJ Media.

  • Americans who “are fiercely nationalistic, as opposed to universal and international in orientation”
  • Americans considering themselves “anti-global”
  • Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
  • Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty (especially their right to own guns and be free of taxes)”
  • Americans exhibiting a belief in “conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty and a belief that one’s personal and/or national way of life is under attack”

Meanwhile, House Democrats in agreement with Trump have introduced a bill H.R.5087 that if passed would ban the sale of semi-automatic firearms. The legislation opts to prohibit the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the legislation entitled: “Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.” More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said. (That number since increased to 165 out of 193 serving Democrats at the time of this report.

This comes as a boycott movement DrainTheNRA #BoycottNRA has risen in recent weeks against the National Rifle Association after Nikolas Cruz, 19, opened fire on Parkland, Flordia Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school that left 17 students and teachers dead with more questions than answers still remaining about the deadly shooting.

The head of the National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre summed up the calls to disarm the American republic at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC.)

“In the rush of calls for more government, they also revealed their true selves. The elites don’t care not one wit about America’s school system and school children. If they truly cared, what they would do is protect them,” he said. “Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms.”

“If they truly cared, what they would do is they would protect them. For them, it is not a safety issue. It is a political issue. They care more about control and more of it. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so they can eradicate all individual freedoms,” LaPierre added. “What they want are more restrictions on the law-abiding. Think about that, their solution is to make you, all of you, less free.”

“As usual, the opportunists wasted not one second to exploit tragedy for political gain,” he said.

In fact, it makes us even less safe when covert deep state operations like Operation Fast Furious, Operation Goldfinger and others have spread unregistered firearms across the U.S. to criminals through illegal arms trafficking.

Disarming law-abiding American citizens by taking away our rights to own a firearm and due process — violating liberty, freedom, and sovereignty granted by the U.S. Constitution — won’t fix any of these affirmed issues.

Instead of pushing for more laws, the ones already in place should be re-examined and enforced; it’s a fact, for example that the FBI was previously aware of the shooter, and that the police department was called to investigate. Both agencies failed to do their jobs, while another cowardly sheriff Deputy Scot Peterson sat in his squad car during the shooting — he has since resigned.

Additionally, let’s add the fact that Cruz not only threatened on YouTube that he was going to go on a shooting, which the FBI failed to act on, but he made similar threats as far back as 2016 on Instagram. Further, Cruz threatened his brother with a gun previously and reports were filed with both the Broward and Palm Beach sheriff’s offices; however, they did nothing, NPR reported.

“He put the gun on the head of his brother before. So, it’s not the first time. And he did that to his mom. It’s not the first time he’s put a gun on somebody’s head,” Deschamps said on the 911 recordings.

So there were several failures of protective measures put in place already where officials failed to act; they must take responsibility, instead of passing it off by blaming firearms.

That armed sheriff could have prevented this tragedy, or at least limited its effect, by stepping up to the plate and putting his life on the line to save the kids and being a hero by stopping the gunman with the defensive use of his own firearm.

Meanwhile, the same day, a man armed with a gun did act to stop another potential mass shooting at a church Faith City Mission in Amarillo, Texas. Although, unfortunately, the hero Tony Garces still got shot by the police who responded to the scene, which again shows a lack of training. Then there are other cases legally justified by self-defense: such as citizens shooting home invaders, like this incident that took place in Louisiana recently.

The creation of the firearm might be one of mankind’s worst inventions; although, one could argue that without it we would have been under the control of the British empire, had a much worse Holocaust, and the list goes on and on.

Here are 11 other times that someone with a gun saved people from a shooting compiled by the Washington Times.

In case you didn’t realize, there is already a law against murder, and that doesn’t change the reality of people still committing murder. This was demonstrated by a stabbing in China that killed 33 and injured 130 in 2014, and more recently an attack at a Beijing mall that killed 1 person and injured 12, CBS News reported.

In the gun debate, there is only one video that ever needs to be seen and that’s the Congressional hearing testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a survivor of the Luby’s shooting, also known as the Luby’s massacre. Which left 23 people dead and injured another 27 when a deeply disturbed man George Hennard, drove his pickup truck through the front window of a Texas restaurant.

It is worth noting in Hupp’s statement, that she stated that she was not a representative of the NRA when she gave her testimony.

The Second Amendment is a right of the people; if you ban sales from lawful citizens, you will encourage black market sales of firearms where the weapons aren’t registered. In such a case, all the criminals will be armed while forcing innocent civilians to be easy targets for a lunatic/lunatics or worse  — tyranny will rise, as history has proven from dictatorship to dictatorship time and time again.

Why would anyone be excited about disarming themselves under any president who shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution and due process, while simultaneously increasing the availability of military weaponry to the nation’s police? Shouldn’t we have learned the lessons of history by now?

About the author: Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Steemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.

Source: Activist Post

Survey: Americans Blame School Shooting on Government, Not Guns

By

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that Americans blame government rather than guns for the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

According to Rasmussen, 54% of Americans believe government failure is to “blame for the mass shooting.” Only 33% of Americans blame guns. Eleven percent of Americans say they are unsure what contributed to the occurrence of the mass shooting.

When the sample group was adjusted so as to focus only on Americans “who have children of elementary or secondary school age,” the percentage of Americans who cite government failure as causal jumped to 61 and the percentage who blamed guns dropped to 23.

On February 23 Breitbart News summarized government’s failure:

  1. The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (PBCSO) received 911 calls about Nikolas Cruz in November 2017. The calls referenced violence and erratic behavior. CNN reports that in one of the calls with the host family, with whom Cruz was living after the death of his mother, told PBCSO they feared Cruz was going to turn a gun on the family. The family member told deputies that Cruz was “buying “tons of ammo” and had allegedly put “put [a] gun to others heads in the past.” No charges were filed, no arrest made.
  2. On January 5, 2018, the FBI received a tip describing “Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.” The FBI did not act on the tip.
  3. On February 14 Cruz attacked students and unarmed teachers in Stoneman Douglas High. A report from CNN claims four Broward County sheriff’s deputies were at the school as the attack was taking place but not one of them entered the school. On February 22 Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel told ABC 13 that video showed deputy Scott Peterson by building 12 on campus, yet Peterson never went inside to confront Cruz. The CNN report quotes Coral Springs sources that claim there were actually four Broward County deputies on scene who did not enter the building.

Additionally, Breitbart News reported that Broward County Sheriff’s deputy Scott Peterson was outside the school’s building 12 while the attack occurred. He never went in to confront Nikolas Cruz.

On the other hand, the 19-year-old who attacked the school complied with gun control laws in acquiring his rifle. He passed a background check at a gun store just as the law demands.

The school was gun-free zone, and he ignored that, as criminals regularly ignore laws that would otherwise hinder them from carrying out their crimes.  The school was also an ammunition-free zone, but Cruz ignored that too.

He also ignored statutes against murder.

What difference would once more law have made?

About the author: AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at [email protected]. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Source: BREITBART

Federal Court Quietly Rules ‘Assault Rifles’ Not Protected by 2nd Amendment

By

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Second Amendment does not provide protection for what it deemed assault weapons, nor does it protect any magazine larger than 10 rounds.

Annapolis, MD — While Americans watched the 2018 Olympics and mainstream media put on scripted town hall meetings to demonize law-abiding citizens who own guns, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia handed down a blow to the Second Amendment.

In a 10-4 ruling, the federal court ruled that the state of Maryland’s ban on 45 different “assault” weapons and its 10-round limit for magazines was not a violation of the citizens’ constitutional rights. The ruling was not without harsh dissent, however.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage, according to NBC.

“It’s unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment,” Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who spearheaded the movement, said.

“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said.

As NBC reports, however, Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn’t even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand,” Traxler wrote.

Elizabeth Banach, executive director of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, says this ruling is “overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional,” adding that it doesn’t go far enough.

“Maryland’s law needs to become a national model of evidence-based policies that will reduce gun violence,” Banach wrote in a statement.

Sadly, the court entirely ignored the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller which determined that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.”

As TFTP has previously reported, every time a lunatic, who is usually on some form mind-altering pharmaceutical, goes on a shooting rampage, the do-gooders in Washington, with the aid of their citizen flocks, take to the TV and the internet to call for disarming the American people.

The citizens who call for themselves and their neighbors to be disarmed, likely think no deeper than the shallow speeches given by the political blowhards, designed to appeal to emotion only. They do not think of what happens during and after the government attempts to remove guns from society. They also completely ignore the fact that criminals do not obey laws and making guns illegal would have zero effect on criminals possessing guns.

In the perfect statist world in which only the government has guns, we’re told that crime rates would plummet, people wouldn’t be murdered, gun violence would be brought to its knees, and a disarmed heaven on Earth would ensue. But how effective would disarming the citizens actually be at preventing gun violence, while at the same time keeping guns in the hands of government?

One simple way to determine the outcome would be to compare mass shootings in America with those killed by police. It is entirely too easy to compare all senseless murders carried out by the state to those carried out by citizens, so we will zoom in with a microscope.

However, just as a point of reference, in the 20th Century alone, governments were responsible for 260,000,000 deaths worldwide. That number is greater than all deaths from illicit drug use, STD’s, Homicides, and Traffic Accidents — combined.

Now, on to the micro-comparison.

According to a comprehensive database of all American mass shootings that have taken place since 1982, constructed by Mother Jones, there have been exactly 816 deaths attributed to mass shootings that have taken place on American soil.

As Mother Jones notes, in their database, they exclude shootings stemming from more conventional crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. Other news outlets and researchers have published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings may be useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at the distinct phenomenon of mass shootings—from the firearms used to mental health factors and the growing copycat problem.

If we were to compare the 816 citizens killed in mass shootings to citizens killed by police in the same time frame, the comparison would be off the charts. So, for the sake of simplicity, we will compare all of the mass shooting deaths in the last 35 years, to the number of citizens killed by police since the beginning of last year.

Already, in 2018, American police have killed 188 people. When we add that to 1,189 people killed by police in 2017, that number is 1,377. This number is set to increase by one, on average, every 8 hours. 

When comparing the total number of mass shootings over the last 35 years to just the last 14 months of police killings the ratio is 1.7 to 1, citizens killed by cops vs. citizens killed in mass shootings. That is a massive difference.

The comparison is staggering and should shock the conscience. But to truly get a perspective, lets go back three years and compare all of the citizens killed by cops since the beginning of 2015 to the number of mass shooting deaths.

Since 2015, cops in America have killed 3,733 citizens. 

In a time period that is less than one-tenth the amount of time it took mass shooters to kill 816 people, cops have killed nearly 5 times as many citizens.

The 2nd Amendment wasn’t put into place so Ted Nugent could piss off liberals in a horrible reality TV series, or so the Duck Dynasty folks could shoot their dinner. It was put there because the ability of a people to defend themselves is the only thing standing in between  freedom and slavery.

Of course, a society without guns sounds fantastic and, in a perfect utopian world, it would be nice not to need a gun. However, we do not live in utopia.

It’s not about “clinging to the second amendment” or being addicted to firepower. It’s about protecting you and your family and no one having the right to hinder that protection.

As John Locke stated, self-defense is the first law of nature. Each person owns his or her own life and no other person has a right to take that life. Those who would attempt to stop you from defending yourself are attacking the very right from which all other rights are derived — protection of one’s own life.

Source: The Free Thought Project

Trump Talks Gun Control, And What We Will More Than Likely See From The Government

By

This article was written by Mac Slavo and originally published at SHTFplan.com

President Donald Trump was still appearing a little dismissive earlier today when he discussed the possibility of addressing gun laws in the future following the massacre in Las Vegas. Although his supporters were quick to say it was a “write off” and he would never enact gun control, Trump’s history before his campaign shows him to be not quite as friendly to gun owners as some may hope.

Trump merely said he will be “talking about gun control as time goes by,” but that’s hardly comforting to gun owners who know his history on the second amendment, and it isn’t all flags and patriotism as would believe. More likely than not, some gun control laws will be written at the state level in places that are massive democrat strongholds, like California, New Jersey, or New York.  But the possibility of more federal laws now looms over our heads too.

Back in 2000, Trump laid out his views on gun control. In a page-long explanation of his stance on guns in his book The America We Deserve,  Trump assessed the differences between the two main political parties’ gun policies. He called what he said was the Democratic party‘s desire to “confiscate” guns “a dumb idea” and said Republicans “refuse even limited restrictions,” noting that they “walk the NRA line.” Instead, he cast his stance as something of a middle ground. “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” he wrote.  And if that isn’t evidenced enough, Trump also agreed with Barack Obama, one of the most anti-gun presidents in modern history, after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

He then made it clear that he wanted to get rid of gun-free zones, but maybe he just hasn’t had the time.  We can give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, right? “My first day, it [gun-free zone ban] gets signed, OK? My first day. There’s no more gun-free zones,” he said in January of 2016.

To be fair, after his election, Donald Trump did roll back an Obama-era regulation that required “mental illness” social security checks on people “unable to handle their finances.” Had this rule officially taken full effect, the Obama administration anticipated that 75,000 would be added to list of those who would lose their gun rights.

Dismissing Trump’s statements outright is simply for those who don’t know what his stance on guns was BEFORE he campaigned for the presidency and how wishy-washy he can be on the issue. Those who do know, are not being so calm about his comments.  Of course, there’s no real reason to be up in arms (no pun intended) just yet, because nothing has been proposed, but it isn’t hard to see it popping up, and soon.

That isn’t to say that gun control will get passed and become law.  Barack Obama failed to do anything even remotely meaningful when it came to new regulations, and some Republicans won’t be swayed. But it is important to remember Donald Trump’s history on the issue and how he’s changed sides.  It’s hard to say which side he’s on now that he is president and it’s difficult to assess what exactly he meant when saying the US will be “talking about gun control.”

White House Finalizing Gun Control Plan!

By

White House Finalizing Plan to Take Major Gun Control Action Using Executive Authority, Valerie Jarrett Says…

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Barack Obama’s advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval.

TheBlaze/AP| White House adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president has asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review “in short order.” She says the recommendations will include measures to expand background checks.

Jarrett spoke Wednesday night at a vigil for the victims of the Newtown shooting, according to a summary provided by the White House.

After the “alleged” mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, Obama said his team was looking for ways to tighten gun laws without a vote in Congress. White House officials have said they’re exploring closing the so-called “gun show loophole” that anti-gun advocates claim allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check.

The move comes following the deadly terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, that “allegedly” left 14 people dead. All of the guns used in the massacre were purchased legally. Opponents of new gun control regulations have argued that the proposals being pushed by Obama would not have prevented the tragedy or recent mass shootings.

SAN BERNARDINO, CA – December 03: FBI agents and local law enforcement examine the crime scene where "alleged" suspects of the Inland Regional Center were "allegedly" killed on December 3, 2015 in San Bernardino, California. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images)
SAN BERNARDINO, CA – December 03: FBI agents and local law enforcement examine the crime scene where “alleged” suspects of the Inland Regional Center were “allegedly” killed on December 3, 2015 in San Bernardino, California. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images)

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler concluded that Marco Rubio’s claim that gun control wouldn’t have prevented the “alleged” mass shootings that have occurred in “last few months or years” is accurate.

“Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny — at least for the recent past, as he framed it. Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Kessler wrote.

The Obama administration has maintained that strengthening background checks, banning semi-automatic rifles deemed “assault rifles” and revoking the Second Amendment rights of people on the “no-fly” list could prevent dangerous people from getting guns.

ALERT: Day After Freddy Gray Fatally Injured, Congress Quietly Pushes Gun Grab Bill

By

by: Julie Telgenhoff

Freddy Gray was arrested on April 12th in Baltimore and died a week later from a severe spinal injury that may have been caused when he was shackled and driven to the police station in a paddy wagon without being strapped into a seatbelt. Gray was probably subjected to what police there call a “rough ride” or “nickel ride.”

The very next day (4/13/15) while Americans were DISTRACTED by the horrific news about Freddie Gray, a GUN GRAB BILL, HR 1745, was QUIETLY introduced to the House to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.
Below is how this sneaky and corrupted, corporate politicians introduced this gun grab bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:

HR 1745 called, Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act, AMENDS the Internal Revenue Code (IRS) to allow an individual taxpayer to elect a tax credit of $2,000 for surrendering a specified assault weapon, as defined by this Act, as part of a public safety program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons. (see the entire bill and important information here)

Sponsor of Gun Grab Bill H.R. 1745: Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro

Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduced the bill to the House on 4/13/15, the day after Freddie Gray was fatally injured. Now isn’t that a coincidence. Things that make you go ….hmmm. 

If you would like to remind this treasonous parasite who she works for (the people of America, not the global governance elitists, here is her website: http://delauro.house.gov/) and she has a couple of Facebook pages where she’s trying to look like a friend to the people who live in Connecticut by objecting to the TPP (coined NAFTA on STEROIDS). Give here your VOICE here and here.

And, PLEASE, don’t forget to see who the other 10 cosponsors of this gun grab bill are who also need to be reminded who they work for. You can find that information here.

Feel free to contact any of these parasitical entities who want to take away our inherent 2nd amendment rights and are obviously in on the plan that calls for the complete disarmament of the American population. 

SEE: UN Declares Arms Trade Treaty to Go Into Effect Dec. 24th: Merry Christmas!!! 
*************************************************************************
DON’T BECOME APATHETIC; KEEP THE PRESSURE ON THESE TRAITORS!

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

SEE: AMERICANS BETRAYED: Ferguson & Baltimore Riots HIJACKED By The GEORGE SOROS MACHINE

ACTION ITEM: Let’s keep on top of this sneaky and treasonous gun grab bill. Luckily, as of 05/07/2015 no related bill information has been received for H.R.1745 – Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act. You can sign up to receive automatic updates on this “assault on our liberties” bill (just look for the “get alerts” located right at the top, underneath the title of this disarmament bill here).

Julie Telgenhoff is the owner of Sheep Media L.L.C. DBA: A Sheep No More™ on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

Reality Check: Unity in Ferguson But MSM Won’t Show IT???

By

UNITY! Black Gun Owners PROTECT White Business During Ferguson Riots!

A group of Ferguson residents who happened to have dark skin, armed with pistols and AR-15 rifles, descended upon a business which happened to be owned by a person with light skin.

These four men stood outside of this business, which was a Conoco gas station, to protect it from rioters and looters who burned other businesses to the ground over the past week in the St. Louis area.

protecting

The reason these four brave men protected this business had nothing to do with their skin color nor the skin color of the owner of the store.

These men were protecting the Conoco gas station owned by Doug Merello, because Merello has employed them over the years. They had mutual interests in the store’s survival as well as respect for one another.  (source)

The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Hurricane Katrina

By

confiscation

VIA| Did you know that when Hurricane Katrina took aim at the city of New Orleans in 2005, the US government utilized the opportunity to disarm the people of that area?

In August of 2005, Katrina, a category 5 hurricane did its best to destroy the city of New Orleans and surrounding communities. Large areas of the town were flooded and the National Guard was called in to help stop the looting and to rescue people. The order was given to tell everyone in the city to leave.  Heavily armed Police and National Guards troops went door-to-door, block-by-block to evacuate the city.

I’m not sure if the order was given by the Democratic governor at the time, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, the mayor at the time, C. Ray Nagin, or the superintendent of police, Eddie Compass, but the order was given to the “order followers” to confiscate all weapons in all homes. You can see Compass giving that order on the video below.

“Order Followers” like Police and troops not only went to the flooded areas of the town and confiscated guns, but they also went to the high and dry wealthy parts of town and confiscated all of their weapons as well. It left the poor citizens of New Orleans without any means of self-protection at a time when rioting and looting had taken place a couple days earlier.

guncontrolpic

There was no justifiable reason to confiscate the guns from the homes that were not affected by the hurricane. If anything, these people needed their guns to help insure their own safety and that of their families. 

They used the guise of a state of emergency to carry out their disarming of the people. They violated the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of New Orleans when they did.

But be warned:

They did it successfully then and are about to try it again, and perhaps, they used Katrina as a test run for the future. Instead of a hurricane creating a state of emergency, it could be either a horrific false flag and/or an economic collapse of our nation. Obama will declare a state of emergency and establish martial law. He will then give the order to confiscate all weapons from all Americans, just like what they did in New Orleans. And for those who do not obey the state, one can be taken off the streets, locked up without due process, never to be seen again under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  Also consider the fact that Obama has been tailoring his military leadership to include those who will shoot fellow Americans if given the order to do so.

At the conclusion of the U.S.-EU Summit held the week of March 24, 2014, in Brussels, President Obama and his European colleagues released a joint statement reaffirming their common commitment to civilian disarmament as mandated in the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

Therefore, I contend that if you want to see what’s coming in the near future, look at what happened with Hurricane Katrina and project it to a national scale.

Illinois School Handout Teaches Second Amendment Requires Gun Registration

By

According to a workbook handed out to seventh grade students at Grant Middle School in Springfield, Ill., the Second Amendment only allows people to own “certain” guns if they have been registered, Infowars reported Friday. The parent who discovered the material confirmed to Examiner.com the handout’s existence and said the school is being “bombarded with messages” about the material.
“This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison,” the handout says.
Image: School handout says Second Amendment requires gun registration. Facebook/Illinois Gun Owners Rights
Image: School handout says Second Amendment requires gun registration. Facebook/Illinois Gun Owners Rights
The Second Amendment, however, says nothing about registration nor prison, and simply states:
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.
The parent, who wished to remain anonymous for the sake of his son, posted a picture of the handout on the “Illinois Gun Owners Rights” Facebook page.
Initially, some thought the handout was related to Common Core, but the parent said in another Facebook comment he was told the workbook was created by two former Grant teachers before Common Core was implemented. The workbook, he explained, was intended for use only at that school.
He also said the reference to registration was intended to illustrate how some states regulate firearms.
“I explained those are state laws and have nothing to do with the Constitution,” the parent added.
He also said that after a half-hour discussion, his son’s teacher and the head of the history department agreed the workbook needs to be changed.
“I even told the school officials I talked to that you can’t reword the Constitution to what you think it should be and you should only teach what it is,” the parent said, according to Infowars. “We live in a society where children are being taught to fear firearms instead of embracing them and our shooting sports. Heck, 50-60 years ago you had police officers coming into schools teaching firearm safety and now we have schools teaching false information and fear. It’s a sad time.”
The picture has since gone viral on the Internet, and is spreading all over Facebook.
Although not related to Common Core, the lesson illustrates what many young people are being taught in public schools.
As we reported last October, an Arkansas parent was surprised to learn her daughter was given a team assignment to revise the Bill of Rights, pruning two amendments from the Constitution while adding two others. The assignment assumed the government had declared the Bill of Rights “is outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer.”
Another Common Core lesson teaches a messianic view of Barack Obama, while yet another claims white voters rejected Obama due to his race.
Multiple calls to the school went unanswered.
 examiner.com