Image Courtesy of Somadjinn

A farmer in the UK was recently threatened with deadly weapons by a group of gypsies that were squatting on her land. She decided to call the police to come deal with the thugs. After taking a whopping 35 minutes to send the first unit to the scene, they did not arrest a single person for the deadly threats. Instead, they interrogated the farm owner for 3-hours over the details of the situation, after which they proceeded to confiscate her lawfully-owned shotgun, stating that “they were given powers to seize guns in her possession and have done so as a sensible precaution in the circumstances” (see link below for source). Furthermore, the police also confiscated her firearms purchase license to prevent her from buying another gun. They did all of this despite the fact that she never even pulled the gun during the entire incident, and she was never charged with any crime. Ironically, many people still don’t understand why gun registration schemes are bad.

Apparently, owning a gun is a greater offense in the eyes of the British police than threatening a woman with knives and chainsaws on her own property. It is puzzling that this nation still has the nerve to insert the word “Great” before it’s title. A truly great nation would not offer police and legislative protection to criminals while throwing decent, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens under the train.

Read more about it here.

Image By Sateda

It was no surprise to me that the mainstream media has utterly ignored the shady on-going’s of a program called “Project Gunrunner” by the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives – formerly called the ATF). The program was supposed to be designed to thwart illegal gun sales in southern states that would later be transferred to Mexican drug gangs. However, it is now doused in scandal as allegations from current and former agents arise that the BATFE may have knowingly allowed (and possibly assisted in) hundreds of guns to be illegally sold and transported into Mexico in a plot to justify their ballooning budget needs.

Apparently, being a mere tool for domestic harassment no longer carries enough political capital for the BATFE to justify it’s existence. You see, the vast majority of seized drug cartel weapons in Mexico are military-grade arms from unfriendly nations abroad, or from corrupt internal agencies within… civilian arms from US gun shops make up but a small fraction of the weapons seized, contrary to what Attorney General Eric Holder has claimed. Therefore, the BATFE found themselves to be a solution without a problem, and the minds therein decided to get creative. Much to their dismay, the foolproof plan was foiled when some of these weapons were later used in a firefight that resulted in the death of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in late 2010.

Recently, US Senator Charles (Chuck) Grassley (R-Iowa) called for an investigation into the matter. Hopefully, the case will make it’s way to the dissection room of the Senate Judiciary Committee before too long. Remember to keep an eye on “Project Gunrunner” in the days to come, and don’t hesitate to write to your US Senators and ask them to support Senator Grassley in conducting a full investigation on this matter. This may be just what the American people need to dismantle this useless and unconstitutional federal agency.

The Brasstard

Image By HiSKS

The poorly-conceived “ammo bill” AB962 has been struck down as being “unconstitutionally vague” by Fresno Superior Court Justice Jeffrey Hamilton. The ruling comes just days before the law would have taken effect… a law that, among other things, would ban internet sales of handgun ammo and require local ammo buyers to be fingerprinted and reported to the CA Department of Justice. Aside from being a blatent violation of an individual right to due process, this law would have been very expensive. AB962 would have cost the financially burdened State millions of dollars annually in wasted revenue to track and record lawful ammo sales, while providing no empirical benefits for crime prevention.

Image By Tome213

Today, we honor the brave men and women who have risked everything in service of these United States of America. Many have returned to post-combat life with deep physical and emotional scars. Many are still out there in the trenches, dancing in the deadly gauntlet of war. And some have not, and will not return at all. We thank their families for the endless sacrifices and support they have offered to our soldiers. We thank their predecessors, who have passed down the priceless knowledge and wisdom needed to survive the perils of combat. We thank our nation’s founders for giving us a country that is worth fighting and dying for. And most of all, we thank the warriors themselves for their service and sacrifice.

Thank you all for everything you have done. We salute you!

All across America, the air is beginning to fill itself with the buzz of the upcoming election season. Political campaign regiments are attacking the airways with impressive testimonies of “truth” and “change”. As the midterm elections approach, we have many issues of importance to weigh in against our choice of candidates. Of these issues, none tell us as much about a candidate as their stance on gun control. You see, unlike other issues, a politician’s stance on gun control tells us a lot about how they perceive the rest of us in their greater agenda; either as citizen members of equal stature in a mutually beneficial social order, or as mere subjects of a lesser class of society that they intend to rule over.

You see, gun control is not really anti-gun, it’s just anti-your gun. From the Pharaoh’s thugs in the Old Kingdom to the savage KGB, anti-arms rulers have always enjoyed the benefits of armed protection, while simultaneously reaping the rewards of ruling over a weak and defenseless society. Just look at Mayors Daley and Bloomberg, both of whom never leave home without multiple armed guards, yet continue to preach that “guns are bad”. This tactic of social dominion dates all the way back to the slaves of ancient Sumeria, and has carried on through post-classical Europe, imperial China, Soviet Russia, and modern day Mexico to name a few. The fact is there is absolutely nothing “progressive” about gun-control… it’s been done and redone, always yielding the same ill effect for the people.

Ultimately, you can tell a heck of a lot about the intent of an individual based solely on whether or not they want to disarm you. Ironically, many of the same politicians who preach fairness and equality are the same ones attempting to keep all of the guns for themselves. So, when you are weighing in the pros and cons of your candidates this year, don’t forget to use the gun control issue to help you size them up. Even if you are not a gun owner, you should be deeply concerned about anyone telling you that you can’t own and carry a firearm if you so choose. This is a big red warning light, foretelling with brazen certainty of what’s to come.

On that note, happy voting and best regards.

The Brasstard

The US Supreme Court released their decision on this landmark case today, applying the 2nd Amendment to States and cities. The doors of case law have effectively been opened for waves of new litigation against excessive regional “gun control”. Here are some excerpts from the case docket…

“Chicago enacted its handgun ban to protect its residents “from the loss of property and injury or death from firearms.” See Chicago, Ill., Journal of Proceedings of the City Council, p. 10049 (Mar. 19, 1982). The Chicago petitioners and their amici, however, argue that the handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted, and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.”

“In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States.”

“The provision at issue in this case, §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, among other things, that a State may not abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The majority opinion describes in-depth the historical upbringings of “gun control” and it’s discriminatory and racist roots. Of the dissenters, Justice Stevens felt that this decision would undermine a vast portion of past decisions, and Justice Breyer had apparently been living on Mars when he concluded that “there is no popular consensus that the right is fundamental”. Ironically, these two judges were born in two of the most anti-gun cities in America; Chicago and San Francisco respectively.

Here is a link to the case docket from which I derived the above quotes…

McDonald vs Chicago