OUTRAGEOUS Gun Control Bills: Family Psych Evals, $800 a Year “Insurance,” a PUBLIC Gun Registry, and More

(Psst: The FTC wants me to remind you that this website contains affiliate links. That means if you make a purchase from a link you click on, I might receive a small commission. This does not increase the price you'll pay for that item nor does it decrease the awesomeness of the item. ~ Daisy)

by Robert Wheeler

Congress and the White House (currently, perhaps the most anti-Second Amendment collection of politicians ever to grasp the reins of power) are now pushing several bills to dismantle the right to keep and bear arms.

United States Bill of Rights: Second-Amendment

“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.”

One new piece of legislation submitted by Sheila Jackson Lee HR 127 is being called “insanity on steroids” by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“Over the years,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “we’ve seen some astonishingly bad legislation originate on Capitol Hill, but this one takes the term ‘abomination’ to an entirely new level. One look at this bill and you wonder whether Congresswoman Jackson Lee ever heard of the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment.”

Things were bad enough with the bills Congress attempted to push through when President Trump was in office but this takes things to an entirely different level.

HR 127 combines many approaches to destroy Americans’ gun rights

If passed, HR 127 would ban some common types of ammunition and “original equipment magazines” for most firearms. Also, it imposes a punishing licensing and registration scheme.

Essentially HR 127 would: 

  • Ban common types of ammunition, which would include every shotgun shell that is larger than a .410. The bill actually states, “It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.” The punishment? A fine of at least $50,000 and imprisonment of at least ten years. So say goodbye to your 12 gauge and many other forms of shotguns.
  • Force Americans to give up hundreds of millions of firearm magazines. Of course, they won’t even be compensating you for doing so. The bill states, “It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.” It then defines “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” in a way that includes those “that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition,” except for .22 rimfire magazines. According to industry figures, there are more than hundreds of millions of 11+ round magazines. Like the ban on shotgun shells, the bill would ban these magazines retroactively, with no compensation for items that MUST be turned in.
  • Require the federal government to register around 400 million guns in America in about three months. The bill says that the registration information would have to be provided to the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) “in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of the section, within three months after the effective date of this section.”
  • Require the firearm registry database to be available to “all members of the public” and “all branches of the United States Armed Forces,” among many others. According to the NRA, that would facilitate private discrimination against gun owners, including in such things as employment and access to essential services such as banking, insurance, or housing. It is also interesting to note that the US military (which is prohibited by law from engaging in domestic law enforcement) is listed as an agency that would take an interest in knowing who owns these firearms and where they are.
  • Retroactively criminalize firearm ownership by young adults. As it currently stands, there are no federal laws prohibiting firearm ownership by adults over 18. This bill would require a license to possess any firearm, and those licenses could only be obtained by those who are 21 or older.
  • Discourage voluntary mental health treatment. The bill permanently bans license issuance to anyone who “has been hospitalized . . . with a mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis (including addiction to a controlled substance . . . or alcohol).” Anyone who has a “brain disease” would also be banned from receiving a license. “Brain disease” includes brain cancer, epilepsy, and Parkinson’s Disease.
  • Require the firearm licensee to pay a tax, aka “government insurance,” for around $800 a year.
  • Require license applicants and other household members to undergo a psychological evaluation, which would be paid for by the applicant.

And that’s not all.

In addition to HR 127, there is a host of other gun control or gun control-related bills being submitted by the new House of Representatives.

For instance:

  • HR 121 – introduced by Sheila Jackson Lee: Provides for the hiring of 200 additional BATFE agents and investigators to enforce and investigate gun laws.
  • HR 125 – introduced by Sheila Jackson Lee: Creates a seven-day waiting period before semi-automatic firearms, silencers, armor piercing ammunition, or large-capacity ammunition magazines may be transferred.
  • HR 135 – submitted by Sheila Jackson Lee: Requires the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to report to the Congress semiannually on the number of firearms transfers resulting from the failure to complete a background check within three business days, and the procedures followed after it is discovered that a firearm transfer has been made to a transferee who is ineligible to receive a firearm.
  • HR 167 – submitted by Al Green: Prohibits a firearm transfer at a gun show by a person who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer.

Of course, all of these bills will be advertised as “common-sense gun reform.” Every shooting victim in the country will be paraded in front of the American people to ensure maximum sympathy while simultaneously destroying their rights.

What are your thoughts?

Do you find any of these measures reasonable? Do you plan to contact your representatives? Share your opinions in the comments.

About Robert

Robert Wheeler has been quietly researching world events for two decades. After witnessing the global network of NGOs and several ‘Revolutions’ they engineered in a number of different countries, Wheeler began analyzing current events through these lenses.

Robert Wheeler

Robert Wheeler

Robert Wheeler has been quietly researching world events for two decades. After witnessing the global network of NGOs and several 'Revolutions' they engineered in a number of different countries, Wheeler began analyzing current events through these lenses.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

73 Responses

  1. All this was forecast by many (Selco included) at the time (not long ago) deemed conspiracy theorists. This is so BS and could potentially cause uprisings, protests and unrest. I can’t imagine Americans giving up this right so easily or peacefully. We’ll see.

        1. “What, all 120 MILLION of us?”

          (laugh) yes. maybe 100,000 at a time to digest each group, but sure, if 120 million must be eliminated then 120 miilion will be eliminated. isaiah 60:12 “the nation that will not serve you shall be destroyed”, and they believe that with all their heart.

          1. Isaiah 11:6 USED to speak of the Lion and the lamb. NOW the WOLF thanks to the MANDELA EFFECT. hundreds of verses now CHANGED including the Lords Prayer. Trespasses no longer exists in ANY Bible anywhere now.

        1. “They hold all the marbles”

          yes they do. but the path forward becomes clear when you realize that they’re all OUR marbles, and that they have and are nothing at all except what they take from us.

    1. Won’t work in USA period, except maybe in the most liberal areas. NJ and CT even had very low compliance with registration. There is NO WAY I would register, but it is especially easy to see why it is a horrible idea when it would be listed with the PUBLIC! This will never gain any traction with the people. If it passes, it will only cause a black market.

      1. “There is NO WAY I would register”

        you don’t understand. you’re already registered. if you’re suspected of owning a firearm (and all your social interactions, cell phone data locations, and internet postings will be mined for such data) you’ll be treated as if you own one.

  2. Politicians really are stupid and can’t think beyond the end of their collective noses. They actually believe they can take away our rights and we’ll just sit here like bumps on a log and do nothing.

    If you politicians don’t wake the heck up more cops are going to die as they try and take on the task of doing the bidding of you sick politicians. No one likes a bully regardless of whether it is cops, politicians or the federal government.

    Those idiot politicians actually believe that criminals will turn in their weapons along with law abiding patriots. Ain’t gonna happen my friends. We will fight to the death to defend our God Given Rights. And, while we’re at it don’t forget to drag those politicians who push this crap to the nearest lamp post and string them up as did the Italians did to Benito Mussolini when they had finally had enough of his tyranny !!!

    1. Sheila Jackson Lee knows full well that criminals will not comply. This is not about crime. This is not about mass shooting events (horrific but incredibly rare). This is not about murder or suicide rates (firearms don’t top either list).

      This is about disarming lawful Americans. This is about the government exercising it’s power and turning formerly law-abiding citizens into de facto slaves with granted privileges and no rights. This is about people control.

      1. They tried this same exact crap in New York state, and got about 3% compliance

        DO NOT OBEY

        DO NOT COMPLY

        PS Seriously, they’re going to jail all 120 MILLION of us?

        1. No need to jail us. They will starve us and evict us. Bank accounts will be frozen and you will be banned from employment. What will you do if you can’t buy food anymore and you lose your home? If you think they won’t do this as it will effect the economy, then think again. They want to crash our economy and the US dollar too. This is all about the NWO takeover and if people die in the process, well so much the better in there minds. We are nothing but slaves to the elites.

  3. All ya have to is vote on not allowing ANY political figures to be “guarded” by anyone who carries anything other than bare hands and watch how fast they shut the BLANK up. As a matter of fact vote into the record that any taxes raised comes out of their salary on a percentage basis also require them to pay for their own health care out of their paychecks like the rest of society does. No zip zilch zero and nada expense accounts and no more flying for free. No more free lunches,dinners etc. Once these leeches are paying for stuff out of pocket things will change. Oh and also the people should have the ability to “FIRE” them since by all means they ARE employees of said “People” ……just thoughts and if anyone knows how to put it on a ballot I’d like to know

    1. “All ya have to is vote on”

      they’re not listening to us or our votes. because we’re not the ones putting them in office or keeping them in office or paying all their spending money.

  4. If you’re trying to piss people off – to make money – you are doing a great job – if that’s not your goal – you had better clean up your act! – I have never seen such a an unreadable/dysfunctional website! – what happened to you? – from now on when somebody links to your website – I will ignore it! – I intent to let Steve Quayle know how irritating your articles have become!

    1. Dear Dean:

      Hi! I’m sorry to hear that you are unhappy with the content here at The OP. But of all the things going on in the world, this outrageous attack on the Second Amendment SHOULD make people angry. It should make every single one of us furious.

      It is my goal to inform – and if this isn’t being covered in detail in the mainstream, I think that people should know exactly what is in these insidious bills. Wishing you the very best.

      Daisy

        1. Yes he is. He plainly stated that he will tell Steve about the content. If he isn’t smart enough to see what’s going on, maybe he should stop coming to this site.

      1. Dear Daisy,
        I support you! You’re a breath of fresh air in this increasingly stale country. I enjoy reading your articles. Steven Quayle isn’t stupid. He’ll realize Dean doesn’t understand that you’re providing vital information to your readers. Thanks for all that you do to keep us informed and prepared.
        God bless you for your extra effort on our behalf.

    2. Dean Scheffler: Where in La-La Land do you reside? You appear to be a brainwashed follower/worshiper of Steve Quayle instead of an individual who thinks for himself. You also sound like a petty tattletale.

    3. Dean: Stop being a cry-baby sniveler! lay off the soy products SOY BOY! You are a 2A irritant and deserves all the Demons have in store for you, bedwetter!

    4. My dearest Dean,
      I have fought and watched my brother(s) die so that you & your kind can be free. They ‘passed’, so that YOU did not have to.
      They, my forefathers and others have given the ultimate sacrifice so that YOU can say what you did, but if you think for one second that they won’t come for you when we are not there to stop them, then you are the one that is delusional.
      I will pray for and i will still protect you till my death to KEEP the Constitutional Republic that i swore to protect.

  5. I don’t see the part thats irritating, I clicked on the link and it goes straight to the Congress website, this bill was introduced on January 4 2021 and is in the introduction stage do far, will follow up in a few weeks to see if it gets passed in the next stage, this article is simply informative and also let’s everyone know what those on power plan to do sooner or later.

    It probably won’t be done peacefully, they probably are planning for that which is why they want the military to know who has what.

    Then again if history teaches us anything there will probably be a lot of people who trust the government and will do whatever they say.

      1. “they’ll eventually be loaded onto boxcars”

        nah. these are communists, by the time they’re loading anyone onto box cars the trains won’t be running.

  6. “Require license applicants and other household members to undergo a psychological evaluation”

    well biden would never pass his evaluation. and he’s got the nuclear football.

  7. “Provides for the hiring of 200 additional BATFE agents and investigators to enforce and investigate gun laws”

    gonna need a lot more “investigators” than that …

    … unless what they mean is sysadmins to handle all the deplatforming/unpersoning code implementations. that I can see, 200 would be more than adequate for that.

  8. “Do you find any of these measures reasonable?”

    reasonable or not, they should be answered appropriately. anything the pretend “authorities” demand to be handed over should be sent their way.

    “Do you plan to contact your representatives?”

    no. they’re not listening.

  9. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia,China, Cambodia,Cuba all started the same way.This bill will lead to real bloodshed. Sounds DOA is the house…..

  10. GOOD LUCK, NO one and i mean NO one is going to part ways with their firearms easily.
    Rename that bill HR-Civil War, because that is what is going to happen.
    Too many people are angry and fed up with useless politicians.
    Thread CAREFULLY, you’ll get far worse than that Childs play capital insurrection.

  11. Hey, just wondering, how many people here besides me know guys who can literally make guns with the tools and equipment in their garage?

    This crap is gonna go down in flames harder than Prohibition

    1. “how many people here besides me know guys who can literally make guns with the tools and equipment in their garage?”

      say nothing.

  12. Yes, because after a year of watching politicians fold like lawn chairs in the face of mob violence, and after a year of blathering about “defund the police”, I’m gonna rush right out and give up my means of protecting my family.

    NOT
    GONNA
    HAPPEN

  13. All of this BS is an unconstitutional,backdoor firearms ban.The psych doctors the anti-gunners are going to use,will say every firearm owner is unstable and cannot be allowed to ever purchase or own a firearm again. The reason they are attempting this is because they are afraid of the 120 million legal firearms owners in the United States of America.These criminals in congress are nothing short of tyrants.This is going to end up going to civil war,and they know it.It is us against them.Kill or be killed.We all need to pray for the hand of God to strike these evil people down as was done to Sodom and Gomorrah.

    1. “unconstitutional”

      they think that THEY are the constitution.

      “every firearm owner is unstable”

      they’ll say that possession is harmful to the children – first in the house, then in the neighborhood, then within 100 miles of a school.

      “the hand of God to strike these evil people down as was done to Sodom and Gomorrah”

      doesn’t seem to happen anymore.

  14. No one sells guns like a ‘liberal’ politician. Criminals are affiliated with hackers, and will use purloined gun registration databases as ‘shopping lists’ to steal guns. Criminals won’t pay insurance, registration fees, or submit to psych evals. They will keep shooting at police cars and passerby and anyone else gets in their way. When the criminals take over the prisons, well…the rest of the system is probably not long for this earth. Politicians are stupid, or possibly in cahoots.

  15. There are going to be millions of “criminals” in the U S if this bill is passed.
    .
    If you recall the NJ law about registering “assault weapons” a while back, as I recall a very low percentage of rifles were registered.
    I think the same thing will happen with this.
    .
    As an aside: Kamala Harris is not a “natural born citizen’, and therefore not eligible to hold the office of president. At least 4 SC court cases prove it.

  16. So if you need insurance for a constitutionally protected right, will there be insurance requirements for non constitutionally protected rights like abortion? Shouldn’t there be some kind of abortion insurance that a woman who wants an abortion should be required to have.

  17. Insurance – $800 to insure gang members and psychos?
    Psychological evaluation – Who will pay for my shrink who is a friend?
    My address on a seewhoownsagun.gov – Does the insurance cover me when some lib comes to my door to intimidate or hurt my family?

  18. This MUST NEVER be implemented. Not is it only unconstitutional but once implemented they will NEVER take it back because you accepted it.

    It will be forever and they’ll take that $800 a year and spend it among themselves like a gang of thieves that will only get bigger every year. Soon it will be a $1000, then $1500, etc.

    They’ll brag about the easy money and soon have everyone in government getting their hands on it and you’ll be that much poorer and unarmed (to make it worse).

    But remember, they can’t do this. If they do then you should string them up on every corner you can find for it is with great certainty at some point they’ll do this to YOU..

  19. They want to make the registered owners list public so the antifa and blm goons can burn your house down with you can your family in it. Not to mention the soon to be formed american gestapo, SS and other secret police groups.

  20. “Shall not be infringed” means that if they want to “infringe” by expanding the government’s authority to nullify, limit, license or restrict that they don’t have, they must go through the Article V Amendment process in order to ‘acquire’ the lawful authority to legislate limits, licenses or to nullify your Rights. If they have no authority to pass such a law or ordinance (haven’t complied with the the lawful Amendment process) then the Supreme Court stated in Marbury vs Madison that: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
    https://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/our-preexisting-irrevolkable-right-of-self-defense/

  21. The Dems mistimed their riot orgy, one year too soon. As it stands the majority of America got a big eye opening in the face of the burning, looting and murdering of last summer, all under the watchful and approving eye of the gang of perverts and usurpers currently masquerading as a government of the people. China bought out the leadership class of the West, and now they all dance to Xi’s tune: Of course it is the objective of enemies foreign and domestic to disarm us. That’s what they do, they are snakes. If they close the government sanctioned economic system to Americans, we’ll restart the local economies and tell them to go fuck themselves.

  22. The section on the psychological evaluation is very interesting to me given my profession as a school psychologist. Please note that professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association and National Association of School Psychologists define mental illness and/or determine who is and is not mentally ill. Definitions are subject to change. Read the various editions of the DSM for examples. In my opinion, those organizations tend to be very left leaning.

    For example, browse the NASP website https://www.nasponline.org/ and review their policy platform, position statements, resolutions and advocacy efforts

    https://www.nasponline.org/research-and-policy/policy-priorities

    Many school psychologists are certified by the department of education in the state where they work and they are also licensed by the state mental health board. This makes them uniquely qualified to do evaluations of children and adults.

    HR 127 leaves the “standards” of the evaluation (that is the content and measures used) to be determined by an attorney, so the evaluation can be as simple as an interview to as complex as administering personality and IQ tests. As defined, the “standard” could actually involve political affiliation(s), socio-economic status, membership in organizations or other so-called “measures” of fitness for buying a gun.

    The evaluation would be conducted by a “licensed psychologist approved by the Attorney General.” So that means the attorney would determine who is qualified to administer the evaluations. Those qualifications are undefined. Given the orientation of NASP alone, use your imagination as to how those qualifications would be defined.

    The licensed psychologist “as deemed necessary” by him/her determines how far reaching the evaluation extends to include family members, members of the community, ex spouses, and possibly further out. In other words, expand sources outward until you find something that will result in a license denial. This allows a politically chosen mental health provider discretion to grant firearms ownership.

    I would not dismiss this as “it will never happen in our state.” This needs to be taken very seriously and everyone who reads this needs to spread the word and take political action to stop this type of legislation.
    I say this for a number of reasons.

    First, giving psychologists this kind of power will be really appealing and they would gladly accept it because it fits with the agenda and gives them direct power to advance the agenda.

    The professional organizations named above have strong lobby efforts to advance this sort of legislation.

    For example, see https://www.aasp-az.org/resources/Febrary%202021%20Intervention.pdf

    Note the verbiage beginning bottom of page 2: “In addition, we support policies that keep guns away from those who would hurt themselves or others, limit access to weapons intended to cause mass destruction in a short amount of time, and ensure that the only armed persons at schools are highly trained professionals, such as school resource officers.” You connect the dots.

    Last but not finally, think of the financial windfall granted to psychologists if something like this passes. Figure about an average of $1000.00 per evaluation and if each member of a family of 4 at the discretion of the psychologist, needs to be evaluation that equals $4000.00 per gun? The number of qualified evaluators would be determined by an attorney. Think of the amount of money floating around and potential for corruption.

    This is a long post but it just scratches the surface of the implications of this type of legislation. Again, this should not be dismissed as “it will never happen in my state.” It is very dangerous and needs to be taken very seriously.

    I think it is interesting that the bill is entitled the “Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act”. I wonder why the other 9 people killed were not mentioned.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44188765

  23. This has little chance of passing. I suspect its purpose is merely to make less ambitious bills look more reasonable. If by some dark miracle it does become law, it will be the most ignored and disobeyed law since the national 55mph speed limit. As to those who believe it can be enforced through financial or other sanctions per a Chinese style social credit system (which is, indeed, being rolled out here), simply consider the Soviet experience. The Soviet Union was literally ignored out of existence by its subjects as the black market became the nation’s economy. It took 75 years only because the infrastructure for an underground, alternative economic and social system didn’t exist, owing to Russia being a feudal monarchy prior to the rise of Bolshevism. It had to be built. Here in North America, that infrastructure already exists, in a society that already has a tradition of resisting tyranny. I don’t think the Left realized that they were about to grab the proverbial tiger by the tail. Now, they don’t know how to let go. It won’t end well for them.

  24. My psychologist SIL is a rabid Dem, it seems to come with the territory. She also seems completely unaware of history and the tyrant’s motivation, as well as the repercussions to society of implementing such laws. “People that espouse conspiracy theories “ are the problem to her, not the conspirators. She’s the Good German we learned about in modern history, all those years ago. I suppose she fits the mold for a gov’t approved shrink when reviewing HR 127 applicants. I don’t think I’ll be talking to her about firearms in the near future.

  25. First and foremost, any references to these bills and all the related actions are about Total Civilian Disarmament, not any form of simple ‘gun control’. Linking the information and terminology makes it about the firearms, not about the actual goal, of taking away any form of effective defense by the individual, and ultimately preventing any form of effective resistance to anything those that are in power choose to do.

    The Total Civilian Disarmament is simply a first step that they must do before they can implement most of the other parts of the Agenda they have for absolute control of all Americans. Things that millions of Americans would denounce, resist, and try to eliminate from our society, and knowing that to be so, they must take away any form of effective resistance. That is primarily modern personal firearms, which are the most common method people have of protecting themselves, as well as fighting back against tyranny.

    They certainly are not the only ones, which is not apparent to most politicians. And they are also the devices and weapons that will be used to take the weapons from the authorized users that ones doing this will have protecting them and their possessions.

    So, to be successful at completing UN Agenda 21 and Un Agenda 2030, first must come the Total Civilian Disarmament of the American population. Now, some of my thoughts on how we, as American Citizens, are approaching and dealing with this action.

    1) They cannot do it because it is unconstitutional:
    It no longer matters to them that it is or is not constitutional. Not only do they rationalize what they do, even knowing something is unconstitutional and will eventually be overturned in the Supreme Court if it is ever taken to that body, because they believe that they will have accomplished their Agenda Goals by that time and even if the Supreme Court were to give a ruling that what were passed as laws are illegal and will be rescinded, just as the unconstitutionality was ignored to start with, the orders to dismantle the Agenda that will have been created will also be ignored.

    And it is likely that the Supreme Court will not even exist by that time.

    2) Those bills simply will not be passed into law. They cannot be, because people simply will not vote fo them:

    The problem with this is that it will not be ‘people’ that will be voting on them, it will be the professional politicians in political positions that are the ones that vote on the bills to turn them into laws or reject them. The very ones that want this done. Certainly not all, but with the number and types of deaths of people, including legally (and some not so legal) performing their duties as our Senators and Representatives, but others that can and do influence those that vote. The necessary votes will be available to vote the laws into existence.

    3) The American people will not put up with the laws:
    I agree, but the problem is, that there will hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent people will suffer greatly and most die during the process of TPTB attempting to achieve the goals of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 The fact that ultimately ‘we’, the American Citizens that abide by the Constitution, want to abide by it, and will take the steps necessary, eventually, to see to it that the Constitution, as envisioned and drafted by those that created the United States out of the Colonial possessions of Great Britain, is once again the law of the land and followed.

    4) It just will not work:
    Like 3), it does not matter that it will not work. ‘They’ will try, and in the process, those millions of innocents and other victims of the attempt will suffer and die.

    5) We will be able to put a stop to this through the system that is in place to do just that:
    I believe it is too late for the legal system to be used with any effectiveness to stop the corruption within the legislative and judicial branches of our government. Add the current members of the administrative branch of government into the processes, and I believe there is no chance at all to prevent what is going to happen.

    6) The American people will rise up and put a stop to it:
    Some will. Nowhere near enough, and far too late even for those that do try to prevent to be successful. Too many people that are capable of resisting, and have the means to resist at the moment, will not resist out of very justifiable fear for their loved ones and dependents. The more Civilians that are Disarmed, the fewer people that are armed will be able to conduct the actions that would stop the process fairly early on.

    And the longer it goes on, the fewer will have either the will or the means to continue the fight and will begin to turn in those means they have to preserve the safety of those they are trying to protect. And just like the fact that TPTB will not be successful, those turning in the means to protect themselves against the now full tyranny, those people turning in their weapons will find that they will suffer as much or more than what they were being threatened with if they did not turn them in.

    7) It is hopeless. The country will become communist, fascist, totalitarian, a social democracy, or one of the other forms of government ‘we’ tend to throw out when complaining about what is happening:

    No, it is not hopeless. ‘We’ will win eventually. Though we will lose millions of good people in the process of winning. It will be a long very hard process. It will happen. It is what happened originally, and was what prompted those in the colonies to band together, fight the Crown, and write the Declaration of Independence, and then, ultimately the Constitution to set up the United States into a system that would become the most effective and successful nation in the known history of the world.

    The US will be so again. Just not before the country devolves into anarchy for a while and is then rebuilt through tremendous amounts of effort by the survivors of the attempts to destroy it completely.

    This is preliminary information to set the stage for the rest of my thoughts on Civilian Disarmament. I have not had much success posting the actual Civilian Disarmament post, but I will try again in a second post, in case the problem is the length.

    Just my opinion.

    1. My Thoughts On:
      Civilian Disarmament
      By Jerry D Young

      I have posted my thoughts on Civilian Disarmament several times. But I have revised it recently, so I will post it again.

      With the newest changes in the US power structure, the likelihood of the subject of Civilian Disarmament is likely to come up time and time again in the near future. Here are some of the ways I address the issue when it comes up and I am in a position to respond and give my thoughts on the subject.

      1) I never, ever, refer to any discussion, comment, or other situation where weapons are referenced by any term other than Civilian Disarmament. For I believe wholeheartedly that the goal of people that tend to bring it up is just that. Civilian Disarmament.

      No matter what term they use, I use Civilian Disarmament in every reply, all through any discussion that might take place. I DO NOT use any of ‘their’ terms. Because that allows them to disseminate information and ideas that are misleading, do not actually pertain to the subject, are often outright lies, and tend to have very strong emotional links to the word, words, or phrases that distract from the actual discussion of what they want to do.

      Not ‘gun control’. Not ‘reasonable efforts’. Not ‘for the children’. Not ‘crime control’. Not ‘reducing gun deaths’. Not ‘gun safety efforts’. Not ‘simply …’ anything. Not ‘only …’ anything. Not ‘reducing gun violence’. Not ‘militia …’ anything. Not ‘regulation’. Not ‘homicide reduction’. Not ‘suicide reduction’. Not ‘limited …’ anything. Not ‘The second amendment no longer applies’.

      Well, I could go on and on and on and… But I will stop here. The point is that I will not use their terms. Terms for which they have applied definitions that often have literally no connection or similarity to classic dictionary definitions of the words.

      So, basically, if I am in the discussion it is a discussion about Civilian Disarmament whether it started as such or not. And though it is very difficult at times, I always try to use the word weapons, as opposed to guns. Because Civilian Disarmament does include taking effective weapons of all types from civilians, not just modern firearms. Black powder weapons, swords, spears, all the way down to even kitchen knives in places.

      2) Any discussion, to be a discussion, whether it be verbal, written, or visual, should be conducted with courtesy, with respect for the other person’s opinion, without interrupting the other person (no matter how large the temptation), and two-way. No preaching, no demands, no ‘I am right and you are wrong’, no angry gestures, with each person being allowed to speak, in turn, and then allowed to speak again, in turn, to address what was said each time.

      I will not argue, especially a yelling match. It solves nothing and puts me in a bad light even for those that support my opinion. I intend to lead the way, provided the example, and be that person that others will actually listen to and take away something rather than just shutting it all out, which means I will have accomplished nothing.

      3) I make it personal. No, NOT calling a person names, not denigrating their intelligence or ancestors. Not using derogatory versions of political party names, group names, organization names, other peoples’ names, or anything with which they identify.

      All that does is get them angry, causes them to rant and rave in return, and totally destroys any chance of exchanging actual information and providing them with information that they might just look at, and think about. They definitely will not consider anything you might suggest if it is accompanied with vitriolic accusations and derogatory comments.

      What I am talking about is make the subject, and especially individual points of the discussion personal to the person with whom you are talking. Use their first name if you know it, and that is not already an objectionable thing to do for them, and if not, simply use the word ‘you’, or ‘your’, with slight emphasis on it each time.

      This will hopefully allow them to see that Civilian Disarmament IS NOT about ‘the other guy’, the bad person, the person with ‘too many’ weapons, ‘the wrong kind’ of weapons, or some other ‘person’ only. It is about them as well. Everything that they want others to do and rules to abide by, they will, as well. And they often do not think about that. Not even consider it. Since they are not a gun owner, nor want to be.

      The list below is the core of what I do. I ask the questions, as I said, always using the slightly emphasized ‘you’ word or variation as needed. This will cause them to think about things in ways they probably have not considered. Often the person is scared, or worried, or even just concerned, and has listened to the rhetoric put out by those attempting to disarm all civilians. Civilians. As in everyone that is not one of their own elite group, and usually police, military, and certain other ‘special’ people that they believe should have the advantages that having effective weapons available give them.

      They believe that they are one of ‘them’ and not one of ‘us’, until many of these things are pointed out.

      So, on with the list and additional comments at the end:

      With emotions running high because of recent events, and many snap decisions being made by people in positions of power, I thought I might pass along some information and some of my thoughts on the subject at hand, so people that might not have been exposed to some of the included information will now have a chance to make decisions based on a more complete base of knowledge.

      I would ask that anyone reading this not take my word for any of it, but do their own due diligence research into the thoughts that I will be expressing. To learn, on your own, if what I am asking and suggesting is true, or is not true.

      This first part is a set of ‘Gun Control’ poll questions, more appropriately called Civilian Disarmament poll questions, that I think should be included in any and all polls relating in any way to the restriction of US Citizens from exercising their God given moral and legal right to acquire, own, possess, keep, bear, and use arms, as expressed in the US Constitution’s Second Amendment.

      I have found that many polls presented to the public are asking for results that are essentially about ‘the other person’, not really indicating that the disarmament would apply to the person taking the poll, as well as ‘the other person’. Take this poll with yourself and your family in mind. See if you are or are not in one of the groups that will be exempt from being forcibly disarmed.

      1) In a gun-free zone, where there is no one around to return fire, and an active shooter with a semi-auto rifle fires all 210 rounds of his/her ammunition: Are 210 rounds in 7 30-round magazines more dangerous than 210 rounds in 14 15-round magazines or 210 rounds in 21 10-round magazines? Yes/No

      2) In that scenario, do YOU think is it better for the shooter to A) fire off those 210 rounds rapidly and wildly, because they are in 30-round magazines and they feel they have plenty? Or B) much more slowly, taking careful aim, because they only have 10 rounds at a time before they have to reload? A/B

      3) Considering the number of shootings that have taken place in areas labeled “Gun Free Zone” do YOU feel safer in Gun Free Zones than in areas where regular people licensed to carry concealed weapons, or people that open carry weapons where legal are or may be armed? Yes/No

      4) Are YOU willing to be unarmed in a society where only ‘official’ people can have firearms? Yes/No

      5) Will YOU feel safer if a new Assault Weapons Ban is enacted? Yes/No

      6) Do YOU think YOUR family will be safer if YOU are denied gun ownership? Yes/No

      7) Are YOU capable of defending YOURSELF and YOUR family without the use of a firearm when confronted by criminals using guns illegally? Yes/No

      8) Should YOU be considered a danger to YOUR family or other people if YOU own a gun? Yes/No

      9) Are YOU willing to have your home and property searched at will by armed officials searching for illegal firearms? Yes/No

      10) Are YOU willing to give up your right to have effective weapons when only ‘official’ people can have them? Yes/No

      11) Should public officials be exempt from gun control measures and be allowed to have them when YOU cannot? Yes/No

      12) Are a public official’s children more entitled to be protected than YOUR children and have armed security in their schools when YOU cannot have the same? Yes/No

      13) Should ‘celebrities and important people’ be exempt from gun control measures and be allowed to have them when YOU cannot? Yes/No

      14) Should public officials, ‘celebrities’, and ‘important people’ have personal guards that are exempt from gun control measures YOU must follow? Yes/No

      15) Is the safety of public officials, ‘celebrities’, and ‘important people’ and their families more important than YOUR safety and YOUR family’s safety? Yes/No

      16) Do YOU know someone ‘special’ that should be exempt from the gun laws that YOU are required to follow? Yes/No

      17) Are YOU one of the ‘special people’ that should be exempt from the gun laws that others must follow? Yes/No

      18) Should those that advocate gun control for YOU be exempt from the law that YOU must follow? Yes/No

      19) Should those that advocate gun control for YOU be allowed to have firearms until everyone else is disarmed? Yes/No

      20) Do YOU think that most of those in public office are ‘special’ and therefore more qualified than YOU to make decisions about YOUR safety and the safety of YOUR family? Yes/No

      21) Do YOU think that people wishing to use firearms in crimes will give up their guns during a gun ban? Yes/No

      22) Do YOU think that criminals WILL NOT be able to get firearms by theft or illegal sale when some people are exempt from gun laws, but YOU are required to give up YOURS? Yes/No

      23) Are those that support rigid gun control laws and advocate the gunning down or burning alive NRA members and other gun owners hypocritical in their thinking? Yes/No

      24) Should YOU have a firearm, because YOU are not a danger with one and everyone else not have one because only YOU are not a danger with one? Yes/No

      25) Are YOU mentally incompetent to own and legally use a firearm because you seek help for SOME mental issues such as depression and take the prescribed medication as directed? Yes/No

      26) If YOU are being treated for depression and taking the medication, if any, as directed, and therefore more mentally sound with the correct chemical balance, are YOU a bigger risk than those not taking anything or seeking help that leaves them with an untreated chemical imbalance? Yes/No

      27) Are YOU incompetent to own and use a firearm because you have minor mental issues that do not involve violence against other people? Yes/No

      28) Are YOU competent to decide whether or not YOUR children are introduced to the safe handling of firearms? Yes/No

      29) Do YOU think government enforcement agencies should have armed agents? Yes/No

      30) Do YOU think administrative and bureaucratic agencies personnel should be armed? Yes/No

      31) Do YOU think administrative and bureaucratic agencies should have armed agents as part of the agency? Yes/No

      32) If YOU do not own a gun, it was an option YOU chose. Do YOU believe you are better off if that option is taken away from YOU, so YOU no longer have the option to or to not to own a weapon because others believe that YOU are not capable of making the ‘correct’ decision about that option? Yes/No

      33) Do YOU think terrorists or people known to be dangerous should have firearms? Yes/No

      34) Do YOU consider YOURSELF a terrorist or a danger to others because of your basic beliefs? Yes/No

      35) Are YOU a member of one of the following groups, have one of the following beliefs, or engage in one of the following activities that DHS has stated that indicate that YOU are a potential terrorist and a danger to the safety of the nation and should be subject to the no recourse/unlimited incarceration/no contact/no trial/no habeas corpus arrest under the US Patriot Act? Yes/No

      1) “Anti-abortion activists”
      2) “Anti-Gay”
      3) “Anti-Immigrant”
      4) “Anti-Muslim”
      5) “Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or undesirable”
      6) “Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
      7) “General right-wing extremist”
      8) “Militia or unorganized militia”
      9) “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
      10) “Returning veterans”
      11) “Rightwing extremists”
      12) “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
      13) “The Patriot Movement”
      14) “Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
      15) “Those that advocate for states’ rights
      16) “Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
      17) “Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
      18) “Those that talk about “individual liberties”
      19) “Those that want “to make the world a better place”
      20) Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
      21) Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
      22) Anyone that “complains about bias”
      23) Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
      24) Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
      25) Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
      26) Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
      27) Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
      28) Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
      29) Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
      30) Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
      31) Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
      32) Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
      33) Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
      34) Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
      35) Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
      36) Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
      37) Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
      38) Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
      39) Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21/Agenda 2030
      40) Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
      41) Christians that have ever discussed the anti-Christ
      42) Christians that have ever discussed the apocalypse
      43) Christians that have ever discussed the book of Revelation?
      44) Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
      45) Constitution party members
      46) Evangelical Christians
      47) Fundamental Christians
      48) Gun owners
      49) Libertarian party members
      50) Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
      51) Members of the American Family Association
      52) Members of the Christian Action Network
      53) Members of the Family Research Council
      54) Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
      55) Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
      56) People advocating a decentralized government
      57) People distrustful of the DHS See Something, Say Something campaign
      58) People driving vans
      59) People involved in the Patriot Movement
      60) People or groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers
      61) People showing an interest in web privacy when using the Internet in a public place
      62) People talking to police officers
      63) People that are involved with alternative media
      64) People that believe in a New World Order and/or Agenda 21/2030 conspiracy
      65) People that believe in civil liberties
      66) People that believe in homeschooling
      67) People that believe in their Constitutional rights
      68) People that express an interest in self-sufficiency
      69) People that express libertarian philosophies
      70) People that express second Amendment-oriented views
      71) People that fear economic collapse
      72) People that have ever expressed concerns of Big Brother
      73) People that have expressed agreement with Constitutional rights and civil liberties
      74) People that have expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
      75) People that have religious views concerning the book of Revelation
      76) People that listen to, watch, or read alternative media
      77) People that oppose abortion
      78) People that oppose illegal immigration
      79) People that possess survivalist literature
      80) People that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority
      81) People using a cell phone recording application
      82) People using a video camera in public places
      83) People wearing hoodies
      84) People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threats to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”
      85) People who buy food in bulk
      86) People who consider themselves “anti-global”
      87) People who disagree with the mass media’s version of events
      88) People who display bumper stickers
      89) People who fly a U.S. flag
      90) People who oppose giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants
      91) People who own gold
      92) People who pay cash for a cup of coffee
      93) People writing on a piece of paper in public
      94) Ron Paul supporters
      95) The militia movement
      96) The sovereign citizen movement
      97) Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
      98) Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
      99) Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
      100) Those that “do not think they should have to pay taxes”
      101) Those that are “anti-global”
      102) Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
      103) Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
      104) Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
      105) Those that are against illegal immigration
      106) Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
      107) Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
      108) Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union”
      109) Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Do not Tread On Me”)
      110) Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
      111) Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
      112) Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
      113) Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
      114) Those that refer to an “Army of God”
      115) Those that support Libertarian concepts
      116) Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
      117) Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
      118) Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
      119) Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
      120) Those who are “fiercely nationalistic (rather than universal and international in orientation)”
      121) Those who are “reverent of individual liberty”
      122) Those who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
      123) Those who believe their “way of life” is under attack
      124) Veterans

      36) Do YOU believe, that even if government jurisdictions, from city governments all the way up to all three branches of the Federal government, are not currently tyrannical in nature, that there are individuals, and groups of individuals, within the governments that do act in ways that are tyrannical, that overstep their legal authority, that use heavy handed tactics, to achieve some agenda that they believe in, even if the government in general does not? Yes/No

      37) Do YOU think that these people in government that are trying to implement their own agenda, with or without the general assistance or knowledge of others within the government, and use force of arms to achieve some part of that agenda, are a danger to YOU and YOUR family due to your beliefs and your expression of your beliefs? Yes/No

      38) Are YOU able to protect YOURSELF and YOUR family from these people if they, by intent or accident, attack you with weapons if you do not have weapons of YOUR own? Yes/No

      39) Since these people are some of those that will legally be allowed to possess weapons of many sorts, often including military ordnance, when Civilian Disarmament has begun, are YOU willing to stand up, unarmed, to protest their actions when they violate some law you disagree with? Yes/No

      40) If Civilian Disarmament occurs, do YOU think that these, for lack of a better term, JBTs (Jack Booted Thugs), sanctioned or not, will be more likely to start taking action arbitrarily to achieve their agenda, and continue to do so no matter what the rest of the government suggests or orders them to do, since they will be some of those that legally have weapons, and those that would stop them do not? Yes/No

      41) Given the reality of JBTs in the future (and even now in some instances), do YOU feel that YOU and YOUR family will be safe from anything they might do, if YOU are disarmed? Yes/No

      42) Are YOU willing to permanently give up YOUR other rights, and YOUR families’ other rights, when ordered to do so in support of Civilian Disarmament, as part of the necessary actions to ensure that Civilian Disarmament can be achieved with the fewest losses to the LEOs and JBTs and government officials that will be enforcing it? Yes/No

      43) Currently, if YOU do not own a gun, it was an option YOU chose. Do YOU believe you are better off if that option is taken away from YOU, so YOU no longer have the option to or to not to own a weapon because others believe that YOU are not capable of making the ‘correct’ decision about that option? Yes/No

      44) Do YOU think YOU are capable of making up YOUR own mind about any subject, not just Civilian Disarmament? Yes/No

      45) Do YOU think YOU should only read, watch, and listen to Main Stream Media sources to get information about what is happening around you? Yes/No

      46) Do YOU think other sources of information and news should be controlled by the government? Yes/No

      47) Do YOU think that online services should have the power to arbitrarily restrict, demonetize, or otherwise keep alternative news and information sources from providing their services and opinions while allowing other sources to continue, when the only difference being the different social, political, or other beliefs being expressed, with no criminal or other rule violations taking place? Yes/No

      48) Do YOU think YOU are capable of making up YOUR own mind about any subject, not just Civilian Disarmament? Yes/No

      49) Do YOU think YOU should only read, watch, and listen to Main Stream Media sources to get information about what is happening around you? Yes/No

      50) Do YOU think other sources of information and news should be controlled by the government? Yes/No

      51) Do YOU think that online services should have the power to arbitrarily restrict, demonetize, or otherwise keep alternative news and information sources from providing their services and opinions while allowing other sources to continue, when the only difference being the different social, political, or other beliefs being expressed, with no criminal or other rule violations taking place? Yes/No

      52) Do YOU think that those that oppose people having weapons, and have chosen to not own them, but have always had that option, and exercised that option freely understand that if Civilian Disarmament comes about, they will have no choice in the matter. An option will be taken from them, in the form of losing one of the primary aspects of being free, the right to keep and bear arms. Do YOU think that those people are going to simply accept the fact that they can no longer make a choice to own or to not own a gun, but are being ordered to, and informed at the end of a gun that owning a gun is not a choice? Yes/No

      53) Do YOU remember from YOUR school years, using the textbooks of the time, and not the new ones now being printed and distributed, about how every totalitarian regime that has ever existed, has disarmed it citizens, so they become subjects, and are unable to defend themselves effectively when that regime began to control them more and more tightly, leading, ultimately, to killing everyone that did not fit their ideal of a perfect subject under their elite leadership? Yes/No

      54) Whether YOU believe it will happen or not, how would YOU defend YOURSELF, YOUR family, and YOUR beliefs if our government DID become totalitarian, and YOU had given up YOUR right to own an effective weapon to combat the abuses of such a government, whether YOU own one now or not? Or would YOU submit to whatever YOU are instructed to do, and force YOUR family to submit to whatever those in authority say they must do? Yes/No

      55) Could YOU and would YOU take up farming tools to fight tanks and attack helicopters and heavily armed troops to protect what you believe in? Yes/No

      56) Do YOU, or do YOU think anyone else, really expects the Federal Government to “control” millions of guns, AND protect 350,000,000 unarmed ‘subjects’ (and I say subjects because we will no longer be citizens), and themselves at the same time, without the support and assistance of 50,000,000 or more former gun owners that are trying to find ways to defend their families against both the real terrorist, as well as our own government agents doing no-knock warrants, because they know there will be people that will not turn in their guns? Yes/No

      57) And do YOU know just how many times SWAT and/or Assault Teams have hit the wrong house and killed the wrong dog, not to mention its owner? Multiply that percentage to 10s of millions of no-knocks. Do you think Civilian Disarmament will lessen gun deaths AND other crime related deaths? Yes/No

      58) Are YOU really aware that when they are talking about Civilian Disarmament, they are talking about YOU? Not just me and another guy, but YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. Believe me, if YOU are not part of the few thousand elite, YOU will be disarmed as well, at gun point, YOUR person, YOUR vehicle, and YOUR house, storage room, gym locker, and back yard thoroughly searched. Possibly at 3 in the morning with a no-knock warrant. Are YOU willing to put YOURSELF and all members of YOUR family through that degrading process? Yes/No

      59) YOU do not even have a gun, YOU say? Well, when the rewards start going up for turning in YOUR neighbors, and YOU have even one person that dislikes YOU, YOU will get that no-knock visit, because YOU lied about having a weapon, and therefore are a ‘domestic terrorist’ and LEOs cannot risk not doing it that way because it just MIGHT be true, since no one would lie about their neighbor over something petty. Do YOU know anyone that might turn YOU in for having a weapon when YOU do not have one, but want to get YOU in serious trouble, simply because they do not like YOU, or YOUR family, or want something YOU have? Yes/No

      60) So, are YOU and YOUR family ready to start looking over your shoulder all the time, because they will be coming after YOU AND YOUR FAMILY for something, at some point, that YOU do, that the elite does not want happening. Like going to a Christian or Jewish church in more than groups of 2 or 3. Or grow a garden. Or complain about the inappropriate handling of YOUR 13-year-old daughter when searched for concealed weapons. And of course, it had to be a full body cavity strip search, just to keep EVERYONE safe. Are YOU in favor of being in situations? Yes/No

      61) And since it will be way too late before Main Stream Media realizes that not only are YOU being targeted, and they have been ordered not to report it, but that since THEY are no longer needed for disinformation, THEY are now being targeted, so cannot warn YOU, YOU will never see it coming, except for warnings like this. Is that the way YOU want to be notified about the real results of what a ‘reasonable’ Civilian Disarmament program will be? Yes/No

      62) And if I am still around (not likely, of course, after this), I will gladly remind everyone that I TOLD YOU SO.

      And if you have doubts about the intention of those that are adamant about Civilian Disarmament, take a look at the following screen shot of a UN document written in 2013 that lays out the plan to disarm all citizens in all member nations. That includes the US. Compare what was written in 2013 to what is happening now. And it this is not scary enough, research UN Agenda 21 and UN Agenda 2030. Note the restricted status of the document. They did not and do not want people to know what they are planning.


      My Thoughts On:
      How The 2nd Amendment “Guarantees”
      The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
      By Jerry D Young

      I believe the following is very important, and is the way I believe, live my life, and part of the reason I prep, not to mention how I prep.

      The Constitution Of The United States IN MY OPINION is a document that acts as a guideline for how free people can live and stay free as individuals. Yes, it does carry the weight of law, but that has always been, is now, and always will be subject to the whims of those that enforce the laws. (Not the police, the elected officeholders.)

      The Bill of Rights, as part of the constitution, DOES NOT guarantee anything. It is simply a list of what free people do. Only when the population does the things listed and sees to it that others are not prevented from doing them, is everyone free in the country.

      A law, no matter how well written, no matter how many people supported it to get it passed into law, is absolutely meaningless if it is not abided by. And if those that have the power to see to it that it is abided by fail to do so by choice or incompetence, then that law is ignored. Where is there any guarantee in that?

      Many of those in our government, especially from Lincoln’s time onward, have, usually by choice, ignored laws themselves, and allowed others to ignore even more laws, and have in the last fifty years or so actively encouraged people to ignore laws and aided and abetted them in doing so.

      Those that say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, answer me this: Are all individuals in the United States (not exempt by reason of being incapable of telling right from wrong as judged by an overwhelming majority of US citizens) now able to keep and bear arms?

      NO. They are not! The 2nd Amendment has not guaranteed it. And it never will. The guarantee comes from the individual citizens of the United States keeping and bearing arms, and if needed, using them to prevent those from preventing any citizen from keeping and bearing arms if they so choose.

      It is the same with each and every one of the first ten amendments of the constitution, and most of the rest passed early on. (Not so much some of the later ones.)

      If we, as individuals, even acting as part of various groups, do not actually do what those amendments list, we are not free, as individuals or collectively as citizens of one of the States.

      If something is given, it can almost always be taken away. A guarantee is from someone else. Therefore, that someone else might just decide to take it away. That is what has happened. Since not enough individuals have actually lived as free individuals, others have been able to convince enough individuals that the power rests with a given group of people, elected Federal Government officers, and extending all the way down to bureaucrats that write policies and procedures that they feel have the rule of law (which the courts started allowing).

      The concept of a Constitutional Republic is that it is a representative democracy. (Note the small ‘d’ in democracy. We ARE NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic.)

      Those that we elect are, by the guidelines of the Constitution, obligated to do as the constituents that elected them want them to do. I think it is abundantly clear now (as many things were ‘self-evident’ way back when, but are no longer) that few, if any elected officials pay much head to what their constituents want, above doing just enough to get re-elected in what has become a convoluted system where sometimes less than 35% of a voting population is able to elect a person into a position.

      It is IN MY OPINION the same situation when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and even more so in many lower courts. The lower courts are supposed to, by their charter, adjudicate cases of those accused of having broken a law. The SCOTUS is supposed to, by their charter, adjudicate cases of whether laws, actions, and a few other things I simply cannot remember, are within the bounds of what the Constitution has set out as what can be done within the country.

      It has never been their place to create laws by judgment, or do anything other than decide if something is within the bounds of the Constitution.

      Again, I ask, where is the guarantee that the SCOTOUS will make sure our ‘rights’ are not violated or taken away? There is none.

      To reiterate, the only guarantees within the Constitution are those that we, as individuals, having been given a list of what free people do to be free, make happen.

      Until we practice our religions; speak freely; disseminate information (free press); assemble openly; petition as needed; keep and bear arms; and do all the other things openly, forcefully, without backing down, and support others that do so, we will not be free the way those that came to create the Constitution, not just those that wrote it, wanted to be, and wanted future generations to be.

      Just my very long, somewhat convoluted opinion.

      And a final request:

      Ask, do not demand, that anyone with whom you are discussing Civilian Disarmament to “Please do your own due diligence research on this subject, using not only Main Stream Medias’ and Civilian Disarmament groups’ provided sources but other sources of information. Please seek out your own sources from all types of places that might have relevant information.”

      Everything is my strongly held opinion.

  26. The section on the psychological evaluation is very interesting to me given my profession as a school psychologist. Please note that professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association and National Association of School Psychologists define mental illness and/or determine who is and is not mentally ill. Definitions are subject to change according. Read the various editions of the DSM for examples. In my opinion, those organizations tend to be very left leaning.

    For example, browse the NASP website https://www.nasponline.org/ and review their policy platform, position statements, resolutions and advocacy efforts

    https://www.nasponline.org/research-and-policy/policy-priorities

    Many school psychologists are certified by the department of education in the state where they work and they are also licensed by the state mental health board. This makes them uniquely qualified to do evaluations of children and adults.

    HR 127 leaves the “standards” of the evaluation (that is the content and measures used) to be determined by an attorney, so the evaluation can be as simple as an interview to as complex as administering personality and IQ tests. As defined, the “standard” could actually involve political affiliation(s), socio-economic status, membership in organizations or other so-called “measures” of fitness for buying a gun.

    The evaluation would be conducted by a “licensed psychologist approved by the Attorney General.” So that means the attorney would determine who is qualified to administer the evaluations. Those qualifications are undefined. Given the orientation of NASP alone, use your imagination as to how those qualifications would be defined.

    The licensed psychologist “as deemed necessary” by him/her determines how far reaching the evaluation extends to include family members, members of the community, ex spouses, and possibly further out. In other words, expand sources outward until you find something that will result in a license denial. This allows a politically chosen mental health provider discretion to grant firearms ownership. I would not dismiss this as “it will never happen in our state.” This needs to be taken very seriously and everyone who reads this needs to spread the word and take political action to stop this type of legislation.

    I say this for a number of reasons. First, giving psychologists this kind of power will be really appealing and they would gladly accept it because it fits with the agenda and gives them direct power to advance the agenda

    The professional organizations named above have strong lobby efforts to advance this sort of legislation. For example, see https://www.aasp-az.org/resources/Febrary%202021%20Intervention.pdf
    Note the verbiage beginning bottom of page 2: “In addition, we support policies that keep guns away from those who would hurt themselves or others, limit access to weapons intended to cause mass destruction in a short amount of time, and ensure that the only armed persons at schools are highly trained professionals, such as school resource officers.” You connect the dots.

    Last but not finally, think of the financial windfall granted to psychologists if something like this passes. Figure about an average of $1000.00 per evaluation and if each member of a family of 4 at the discretion of the psychologist, needs to be evaluation that equals $4000.00 per gun? The number of qualified evaluators would be determined by an attorney. Think of the amount of money floating around and potential for corruption.

    This is a long post but it just scratches the surface of the implications of this type of legislation. Again, this should not be dismissed as “it will never happen in my state.” It is very dangerous and needs to be taken very seriously.

    I think it is interesting that the bill is entitled the “Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act”. I wonder why the other 9 people killed were not mentioned.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44188765

  27. The Bills WILL pass. And of course NOT ONE FRIGGIN” Congress(person) has GIVEN ANY THOUGHT AS TO HOW TO HANDLE ILLEGALLY OWNED GUNS BY GANGS. Hmmmm. Why Not? Oh, yeah, that is being “discriminatory, and racist etc”.
    And if only it were allowed that I could fully express my thoughts and feelings here. Ah but alas, FREE SPEECH is now outlawed. Albeit via private corporate powers, still censorship which the gov’t is fully in ACCEPTANCE with.
    THANKFULLY the gov’t is PAYING me not to work. All that money I put away now GIVES ME THE FREEDOM to PURCHASE A GUN ILLEGALLY.
    And NOBODY will EVER KNOW. Har har Sheila Jackson.

  28. We have “gun control” in Canada.
    Firearms ownership is a “privilege”
    You have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms
    Act accordingly and save your RIGHT.
    Privilege can be taken away with the swipe of a pen, but a RIGHT can’t be unless you let it happen.
    Lobby, write your congressman, paint signs, complain daily, do whatever it takes, but do NOT give up a RIGHT.
    But if you do give it up, remember then that every single other RIGHT can now also be taken because you bowed down once already.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You Need More Than Food to Survive
50-nonfood-stockpile-necessities

In the event of a long-term disaster, there are non-food essentials that can be vital to your survival and well-being. Make certain you have these 50 non-food stockpile essentials. Sign up for your FREE report and get prepared.

We respect your privacy.
Malcare WordPress Security