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:
Our Prez does not care, he does what ever he wants, our Tyrant.
Yeah..add me so that we can be friends..
In my opinion……..
Are there connections between illegal immigration and terrorism?
Should our borders and ports of entry be under “operational control”?
“Operational control” means (nothing including people) enters our Nation without permission. Could it be that the federal government is giving “permission” for the flood of illegal aliens into the U.S.? Do they do background checks on criminal records or ties to terrorism; before granting said “permission”?
Since 911 our privacy has been sacrificed in the name of “National Security” through laws such as (the patriot act) used by “Home Land Security”. Is the “patriot act” Constitutional? Or is that even a relevant question today?
Our borders have remained porous and out of control; under both Obama and Bush.
Which begs the question; why?
I was naive enough to believe that after 911; our leaders would get serious about protecting the people of the United States. But I have watched our borders remain uncontrolled with no way of even knowing who or what has entered.
Legal immigration seams to be the only thing concerning “Home Land Security”; while turning a blind eye to the masses of people flowing into the United States in direct violation of current immigration law.
They tell us those here illegally only want a better life for their families; and promote even more unaccompanied children to break our laws – while transporting them to various cities for resettlement around the Nation – all at tax payer expense.
They now propose to do the same with Syrian refugees from “radical Islamic conflicts”; while having no practical way of vetting them.
All this while pushing for even more gun control laws; on the American people.
They arm our enemies; (whether intentional or not) putting the American people in even more danger than before.
All of which begs the question; whose side are our elected officials on?
Bush said “you are with us or you are with the terrorists”; I now wonder who “us” is.
We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a wviolation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.
A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.
Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.
It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.
If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.
Listen and learn.please, please, please, everybody must see this video. It is the absolute truth.
Best place to buy guns, an estate sell. They are registered to dead people!
Thank you, Kiaayo, it was very insightful. Now the question is : how can Obama get away with the murder of our laws & constitution?!
“Gun Control” is illegal as it is in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment.
The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one’s life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
“Gun Control” is illegal as it is in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment.
The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one’s life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
What does it “Stipulate”?