People wondering what expanded gun control in the US will look like need only look to Canada.
Although liberals are eager to point to Canada as some bastion of “common-sense” gun legislation (as opposed to “nonsensical” legislation), a news anchor from our northern neighbor tells a very different story. Addressing American viewers directly, Brian Lilley warns them against accepting government proposals for a national registry for gun owners.
He explains that when Canada first introduced the database, many opposed since it could be used to keep track of and seize law-abiding gun owners’ weapons, but the authorities dismissed these concerns and went through with it anyway.
Turn to the next page for video of Lilley’s distubring account:
i will not comply
I tried to warn canadians about falling for a liberal arts drama teacher prime minister.
Now I get to mess with them, so, well deserved for the Cassandra effect.
They can go to hell. Second amendment does not stipulate that
People do not comply. It’s our conditional right to have gun, no where does it say we have to register them.
Number 4 seems to be the hardest thing for Obummer to accomplish.
Registering guns only gives Tyrants an address to come and get them
a failed policy of ridiculous cost
Thank you canada our military won’t. Allow that its treason
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FORBIDS JUDGES OR LAW MAKERS FROM INFRINGING OR PASSING LEGISLATION “EDITING” ANY AMENDMENT.
WHOSOEVER tries to enforce such legal fictions is to be resisted by ALL FORCE necessary INCLUDING lethal force. IT IS YOUR DUTY as an american to assist in the Lawful Resistance of UNLAWFUL legislation in the event you witness a fellow american being oppressed whether he knows his rights, conforms, or not!
By not honoring your constitutional oaths we LOST the following.
– The First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, religion, and petitioning government for redress of grievances, all newly under pressure from widespread warrantless surveillance, secret datamining of private data, surreptitious infiltration of peaceful protest and solidarity groups, President Obama’s increased prosecution of supposedly protected whistleblowers and leakers, and changes in the law allowing criminalization and chilling of such speech and association promoting peace and human rights under the Patriot Act’s “material support” provision (which criminalized “expert advice and assistance” and was upheld in the US Supreme Court’s closely divided, erroneous decision Holder v. Humanitarian
The Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant and probable cause to believe a crime or terrorism was involved, which also have been eroded by the FISA Amendments Act (allowing the Bush-era illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans’ phone calls, emails, and web-surfing habits), Patriot Act provisions including section 505 regarding the notorious and repeatedly abused National Security Letters (allowing the FBI to search a wide variety of library and business records without probable cause, any judicial review, or notifying the target), section 215 (the library and business records provision requiring the secret FISA court to approve searches on a mere “relevance” standard and probably also being interpreted to allow a secret datamining program some Senators say would “stun” and “anger” the US public if revealed), section 213 (allowing sneak and peek” secret black bag job searches of homes), and section 218 (basically importing expansive foreign intelligence surveillance powers into domestic criminal law).
The Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law has been infringed not only by the extreme measure of assassination noted above, but also by increasingly routine arbitrary changes of the rules–contrary to President Obama’s promises — so as to block accountability for other violations of fundamental rights, as with the use of the state secrets privilege, standing, and other procedural doctrines to completely immunize those who labeled citizens like Jose Padilla “enemy combatants”, or those who tortured, participated in extraordinary rendition (kidnapping and “disappearing” people) to places of torture, and planned and conducted warrantless surveillance,
– The Eighth Amendment rights to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (also protected by an international treaty, the Convention Against Torture, signed by Pres. Ronald Reagan, and by federal statute), which has been rhetorically embraced by both the Bush and Obama administrations but ignored in practice (especially by the former, but also allegedly to a lesser extent even by the latter, in cases such as those of Bradley Manning, Gulet Muhammed, and in Afghanistan and Iraq).
Have these major infringements spilled over into the routine law enforcement and justice systems of the United States?
“Some of us had expectations that these developments wouldn’t further affect ordinary citizens. We all know that legions of ordinary citizens already have been harmed and had their privacy and liberties infringed by National Security Letters and other Patriot Act provisions, as decades of gradual progress in expanding rights have been undermined and generations who have fought for hard-won liberties have seen both their liberty and their security dramatically reduced this past decade. This category includes:
– The increasing militarization of domestic policing and intelligence gathering, as seen in such developments as the Pentagon’s new Northern Command, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) involvement in domestic intelligence and counterterror efforts, Pentagon involvement in infiltration of domestic peace and anti-war groups, increasing deployment of weaponized drones within US borders as well as at the borders, and the surveillance, biometric, and other equipment and weapons defense contractors have imported from Iraq and Afghanistan into American streets, all as described (among others) by Dana Priest and Bill Arkin in their Top Secret America Washington Post series and book, and all in great tension with our Constitutional regime and historic bias against domestic deployment of military forces as reflected in Posse Comitatus and other laws,
– Although sold as temporary, emergency counterterror measures, these laws and approaches such as the Patriot Act have only become more permanent and used overwhelmingly for routine, domestic law enforcement (such as drug cases and minor offenses) — as repeatedly confirmed in the government’s own reports, such as the recent one described by the ACLU pertaining to “sneak and peek” home search warrants — again contrary to the basic premises and fundamental laws of our democratic republic and its origins in a Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights arranged precisely against such arbitrary and unconstrained power.
– The way the laws have, as described above, been used to immunize high officials and the powerful from accountability of any type (no torture victim has received his or her day in US court!) at the very time laws for lesser violations have resulted in the United States carrying the dubious honor of having imprisoned more of its population, in both absolute and percentage terms, than any other nation in the world. This discrepancy remains a substantial driver for the Occupy movement and can be expected to continue to drive social instability, protest, and conflict unless and until the gaps in transparency and accountability are remedied and again realigned with the original, sensible Constitutional vision and allocation of rights and powers.
The government has done what terrorists never could: taken away freedoms, privacy and Constitutional rights that were fundamental to what it means — or, more accurately, what it meant — to be American. The Government has multiplied in size and exploded in scope. It has taxed, borrowed and spent until it is forever impossible to restore federal spending to what it was before. Our American principles have been beaten to death.
Defending the Constitution requires members of the Armed Forces to disobey illegal orders. And, in the case of alleged treasonous acts, members of the Armed Forces are constitutionally bound to arrest such offenders.
So what, exactly, have you done to honor the oath you took to Uphold and Defend the Constitution…your obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
All it requires is for those who have taken their oaths of office to act on what they swore they would actually do.
2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose
When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1789, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government.
One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State”
The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.
The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.
For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.
As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.
So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”
And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.
Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.
The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.