11 Articles On Gun Seizure | The Gun Control Agenda = Freedom From Government Tyranny

Gun control is about control not guns

Dylan Eleven   Truth11.com

It would be nice to think that the reason behind the gun control debate was the safety of the population.  Although great lengths are taken to ensure the population are swayed by the news of horrible events, mass shootings, real, staged or provoked it is not the reason the guns are wanted out of our hands.  It is simply the ease of martial law take over.  In reality they are after our guns so we are defenceless against them.  Even if they get a large chunk of law abiding citizens to hand in their guns it would be that many people that would not rise up against them armed when the hammer falls.

The definition of the 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.

Here are 11+ articles on the gun control debate.


‘Gun control’ + US unlawful wars killed 100 million; Americans should never disarm

Washington’s Blog
December 31, 2012

Documentations of government-dictated gun control/confiscation show ~70 million deaths in the 20th Century (and here). Regarding US government history to use its own guns in unlawful murders, documentations show up to 30 million US government victims from unlawful armed war attacks since WW2.

Adding these figures together provide Americans with useful history to inform their policy position from US “leadership” propaganda for Americans to disarm.

The data show ~20% of given populations who disarm to their governments are thereafter killed by those who disarmed them. For Americans, that history equates to over 60 million Americans killed by our own government.

US government motivation for gun confiscation has nothing to do with protecting innocent human lives.US reneged promises to end poverty kill ~20,000 children daily. Since the 1990 World Summit for Children where the US promised 0.7% of income to save a million innocent lives every month, and have delivered only token gestures, more innocent human beings have suffered prolonged and gruesome deaths from poverty than deaths from all wars and violence in recorded human history.

More useful history is that current US wars are not even close to lawful (and here), with US “leadership” thereby at risk for arrest. With economic crimes of fraud in the trillions, and corporate media lies to “cover” these “emperor has no clothes” obvious crimes, our criminal 1%’s motivation to disarm the 99% seems clear.

As always, I recommend a Truth and Reconciliation process to split minions from hardened masters, and assist with the full evidence to fully document these crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions.


In The Wake Of Sandy Hook

Press For Truth
Jan 7, 2012

In The Wake of Sandy Hook is a video report which documents the history of mass shootings and how recent events have sparked intense debate on the laws concerning gun control vs the balance of public safety.


They’re Coming for Our Guns! Do You Understand?

January 5, 2013

Alex covers the latest assault on the 2nd amendment and how other media outlets have now joined msm in demonizing true alternative leaders who have been informing the public about government corruption, false flags, chemtrails and more for years.


White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings

Jan 5, 2013

I cover two huge breaking gun story’s in this report. Barack Obama is coming for the guns outside of law and a video has been dug up showing Obama promising to never take any guns from Americans. He is a total con man!


Tuesday, January 8, 2013

WA State residents rise up against anti-self defence bill


Mikael Thalen, Contributor
Activist PostRep. Sherry Appleton from the 23rd district in Washington State pre-filed House Bill 1012 on Dec. 5th of last year to do away with the state’s Stand Your Ground law.The Stand Your Ground law state’s that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. This law is most notably seen when one is defending their home or property.

Opponents of Stand Your Ground believe it gives too much leeway and will lead to unnecessary violence. Supporters state that defending one’s self is a birth right and laws prohibiting so only cause more damage to law abiding citizens. They also point to studies showing that guns are used in defense of crime three-to-four times more often than they’re used in the commission of a crime.

When word of the bill got out, hundreds of Washington residents flooded Appleton’s office with emails and phone calls, demanding the bill be removed. Appleton’s office, overwhelmed with the response, decided to back off from the bill, at least for now.
Reports indicate that Appleton’s lawyers will reword the bill and then re-submit it next session, which has citizens and local Representatives keeping close watch.”I think it’s to early to say the bill has been defeated. The 2013 session has not yet began and a lot can happen between now and the end of April. I do think the public outcry against the proposed legislation demonstrates that citizens are watching Olympia closely and are willing to take a stand,” said Rep. David Taylor of the 15th district.Rep. Matt Shea of the 4th district noted, “This is a perfect example of grassroots activism at its finest. The right to bear arms in defense of one’s self is enshrined in Article 1, Section 24 of our State Constitution. We must be ever vigilant to protect our natural born rights as Americans.”

Representatives Jason Overstreet and Carry Condotta from the 42nd and 12th district were also noted as bringing light to the issue as well as many of Washington’s Open Carry activists.


Luby’s Massacre Survivor Advocates Concealed Carry

Jan 8, 2013

I made the most stupid decision of my life when I decided, several months before the Luby’s shooting, to stop carrying a revolver in my purse in the event that I would be caught and lose my chiropractor’s license. That decision left me unarmed at the time when I most needed a gun. I’m not mad at the guy that killed 23 people that day. How can I be mad at a rabid dog? I don’t blame guns. I blame politicians that legislated away my right to carry a gun to protect myself and my family.



What is The 2nd Amendment?

Jan 8, 2013

Aaron Dykes breaks down the meaning of the 2nd amendment


Thursday, January 3, 2013

Why is the Possession of Anything a Crime?

Eric Blair
Activist Post

Why is the possession of anything a crime in a free society?  It is the antithesis of freedom to stop people from merely having something.

Simply possessing something causes no harm to anyone. It is a victimless crime. Therefore, a crime should only be if the item in possession is misused in a way that harms others.

As the gun control debate rages on, Congress has introduced the most restrictive gun law ever, banning the sale and possession of most semi-automatic weapons.

So what are we to make of the approaching “war on guns”?  If history is an indicator, the prohibition of guns will likely cause more violence, not less.  In other words, it will have the exact opposite effect as its stated purpose of reducing gun violence.

Drug possession remains illegal on the notion that the State has a moral obligation to protect people from themselves. Again, this is a victimless crime and a clear violation of individual freedom.
Additionally, some argue that society is better off with drugs prohibited. Yet that argument is getting tougher and tougher to make given the collateral damage to society caused by the drug war itself.And, pragmatically, prohibition laws have never reduced the supply of the banned items. It didn’t reduce alcohol in the 1930s, it hasn’t reduced drugs, and it hasn’t reduced prostitution.If there is demand for something in society, there will always be a supply no matter what the cost may be. All prohibition does is to criminalize the peaceful behavior of possession.

So can politicians be stupid enough to believe that by criminalizing guns they’ll actually remove them from society?  Perhaps they are, but maybe there’s another motivation at work here.

Criminalizing guns in society will give the government a monopoly on firepower. Those who naively believe that government is a force for good applaud the idea. But what if those who control the government are tyrants? Only tyrants want to criminalize behavior that they themselves would still be allowed to engage in.

Criminalizing guns will also justify increasing the police state and will serve to fill prisons with more warm bodies who are only guilty of possessing a tool.

Finally, is it possible that the powers-that-be want to create more violence? Because that is exactly what will happen if they ban and attempt to confiscate a large majority of personal firearms. Surely they know this, so maybe they welcome it for some diabolical reason.

The prohibition of guns has the potential to be far more destructive to society than the war on drugs. It will create a black market that will make drug gangs look like pussycats. In this black market, both the buyers and the sellers will be armed.

Combating gun possession will not be as easy as arresting medical marijuana patients. It will assuredly be a very bloody endeavor if the government seeks to take people’s lethal possessions for no cause.

Criminalizing possession of guns is akin to prosecuting pre-crimes because of the potentiality of victims without an actual offense ever taking place.

If we’re not careful, possessing ideas will soon be a crime as well. Indeed, ideas scare the powers-that-be the most.  And as they’re losing the battle of ideas, they will naturally seek a monopoly on force.

Since guns may be the last line of defense for the idea of freedom, gun possession must never be criminalized.

Read more articles by Eric Blair here.


Obama Would Call on Military to Disarm Americans During National Emergency

Army manual provides blueprint for confiscating guns of rioters and dissidents

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 2, 2013

The blueprint for how Americans would be disarmed during a declared civil emergency is contained in an Army manual that outlines a plan to confiscate firearms to prevent them falling into the hands of rioters or dissidents.

Obama Would Call on Military to Disarm Americans During National Emergency 020113drill

Given the imminent introduction ofSenator Dianne Feinstein’s draconian gun control legislation, which would instantly criminalize millions of gun owners in the United States if passed, concerns that the Obama administration could launch a massive gun confiscation effort have never been greater.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

The document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”

“Restrictions on the sale, transfer, and possession of sensitive material such as gasoline, firearms, ammunition, and explosives will help control forces in minimizing certain forms of violence,” states the document on page 40.

The issue of gun confiscation is also covered in the manual, which makes clear that every effort will be made to prevent “rioters” and “dissidents” from having access to weapons.

“A main consideration in the conduct of civil disturbance operations is to prevent liquor, drugs, weapons, and ammunition from falling into the hands of rioters. Therefore, liquor stores, drug stores, sporting good shops, pawn shops, and hardware stores are main targets for looters and must be kept under close observation by means of foot and motorized patrols. Normally, businesses of this type must be identified in advance and included in emergency plans,” states the manual. (Emphasis added.)

The document also instructs soldiers to protect “control force personnel and civilian dignitaries in the disturbed area” from the violent behavior of “radical or extremist elements” by denying access to “armories, arsenals, hardware, and sporting good stores, pawnshops, and gunsmith establishments, or other places where weapons or ammunition are stored. To conserve manpower, consideration may be given to evacuating sensitive items, such as weapons from stores and storing them in a central facility.”

Urban warfare training drills focused on invading American towns and going door to door in gun confiscation exercises have been taking place for years. In 2009, a planned mock invasion of Arcadia, Iowawas scaled back by the Iowa National Guard after listeners to the Alex Jones Show threatened to protest the event.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police, National Guard troops, and U.S. Marshals confiscated firearms. “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns,” New Orleans PoliceSuperintendent Eddie Compass declared as he prepared to violate the Second Amendment. The National Guard conducted warrantless house-to-house searches, targeting not just Hurricane-hit areas under the pretext of stopping violent looters, but also high and dry homes that were not even affected by the storm.

Watch the clip below in which Infowars’ Rob Dew discusses the Army manual.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.


Illinois Moves to Outlaw Modern Firearms and Criminalize Owners

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
January 2, 2012

Illinois Moves to Outlaw Modern Firearms and Criminalize Owners shootingrange
Legislation will also target shooting ranges.

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton will reportedly introduce a draconian bill today in the Illinois legislature that will effectively ban all modern firearms, criminalize their owners, and subject their guns to confiscation by the Illinois State Police.

The proposed outlawing of firearms was confirmed by the NRA’s Illinois rep, according Robert Farago, writing for The Truth About Guns website.

The move coincides with a federal effort by Senator Dianne Feinstein to introduce legislation outlawing semiautomatic firearms and imposing a de facto to confiscation.

From the Illinois State Rifle Association:

Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called ‘assault weapons’ but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution.

Folks monitoring the effort to disembowel the Second Amendment in the Land of Lincoln say the bill has a 50-50 chance of passage. The advise gun owners both in and out-of-state to call Senate President Cullerton at 217-782-2000 and contact state representatives at ilga.gov.

In addition to outlawing a large number of firearms, the legislation will target shooting ranges in the state. “Not only are they going after semi-autos and magazines, but they are going after ranges,” the Illinois Carrywebsite reports.

In November, we reported on November 29, we reported on Illinois governor Pat Quinn’s attempt to circumvent the legislature and impose an assault weapons ban. State Sen. Dave Luechtefeld, a Republican from Okawville, led an override that defeated the governor.

In early December, gun grabbers in the state were dealt a setback when the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the state’s ban on carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional.

“We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” the court ruled.


Why Do Mass Killings Occur?

Karen De Coster
Lew Rockwell Blog
Jan 3, 2012

A reader writes me this today:

Karen: As an owner of several guns I still believe that the threat of mass killings could be reduced if we outlawed assault weapons of any kind as well as clips over 5. Just maybe this might reduce the next mass shooting to something less than 26. The only way an average gun owner can compete with others who have assault weapons is to get one themselves. Probably not a good solution. I realize that outlawing these weapons would not eliminate them completely but fewer of them would make it harder for the average mental case to obtain one. What do you think?

I can’t believe the propaganda is penetrating supposed gun owners, but the powers of indoctrination will lead the majority of the masses toward servitude. As Aldous Huxley said in Brave New World:

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.

My response was that I think we could ban one highly-profitable root cause of these mass killings: psychiatric drugs. Or we could ban another influence for these killings: be reminded of all of the Hollywood celebrities who clamor for the outlawing of guns and/or “assault” weapons, and then note the homicidal movies they have made for the masses. Is there a slight disconnect here? Why are people still walking around in the fog of the unknown? Follow me on Twitter @karendecoster.


Obama to ‘Quickly’ Go for Immigration Reform and Gun Control

Weekly Standard
Jan 3, 2012

President Barack Obama will go for immigration reform and gun control this month, the White House tells the left-leaning Huffington Post. Obama’s actions will reportedly be done “quickly.”

“An Obama administration official said the president plans to push for immigration reform this January. The official, who spoke about legislative plans only on condition of anonymity, said that coming standoffs over deficit reduction are unlikely to drain momentum from other priorities. The White House plans to push forward quickly, not just on immigration reform but gun control laws as well,” reports the Huffington Post.

“The timeframe is likely to be cheered by Democrats and immigration reform advocates alike, who have privately expressed fears that Obama’s second term will be drowned out in seemingly unending showdowns between parties.”

The outlet claims that it is “unclear what type of immigration policies the White House plans to push in January.”

Full article here


Gun Ban Bill Advances to Senate Floor

Effort to apply Chicago’s disastrous gun control policy across entire state accelerates

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 3, 2013

Legislation in Illinois that would outlaw many modern firearms has advanced to the Senate floor and could face a vote today as second amendment activists cry foul over the legislation’s draconian provisions.

HB 815 amendment 1 & 2 and HB 1263 amendments 5 & 6 were passed out of the Illinois Senate Public Health Committee last night, advancing to the full Senate floor for a debate and possible approval later today.

As we highlighted yesterday, the legislation would ban a plethora of firearms including semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, and pump action shotguns, forcing residents to register them with State Police as a pre-cursor to confiscation.

The two bills, which are being spearheaded by Democratic Senate leader John Cullerton and have a 50-50 chance of passage, would also severely restrict private gun ranges by placing them under government regulation.

“If passed the bills would ban most all semi-auto handguns, rifles, and shotguns as well as pump rifle and shotguns. The proposed legislation would also close down most shooting ranges and clubs that are open to the public or conduct events open to the public. Included in the legislation is a ban on ammunition magazines with a capacity to hold more than 10 rounds, a requirement to register all guns and magazines with the Illinois State Police,” reports IllinoisCarry.com.

In the video clip above, State Senator Dale Righter outlines the details of the two bills and notes that they represent a violation of second amendment rights. “I will not support any legislation….that requires anyone in Illinois to register their firearms with State government,” said Righter.

The legislation represents an effort to apply Chicago’s restrictive gun control laws to the rest of the state of Illinois. Given the fact that the vast majority of Chicago’s law-abiding citizens have been disarmed via gun control, it’s unsurprising that the Windy City has a soaring gun violence rate because only the criminals are allowed to own firearms.

In 1982 Chicago passed a ban on all handguns except for those registered with the city before the ban was enacted. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional, but city officials rushed tore-write the law.

Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase violent crime.

Infowars is encouraging residents of Illinois to call Senate President Cullerton at 217-782-2000 and contact state representatives at ilga.gov to voice their opposition to the legislation.

Gun Ban Bill Advances to Senate Floor 030113graph

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.


How television takes your guns

Jon Rappoport

Jan 3, 2012

Somebody has to write about these things. Since I’ve worked as a reporter for 30 years, I know enough about how the game is rigged.

I’m talking about the big mass tragedies. Sandy Hook, the Aurora theater, Hurricane Sandy, Katrina.

Many of the interviews with survivors are done on the spot, with no prep. But the biggest interviews are done in a television studio or a home, by a recognized anchor. The setting is arranged beforehand and lit well. A mood and a framework are established.

The guests are prepped by one of the producers before they go on-air. This is where the brainwashing occurs. A potential conflict needs to be resolved. The network has its agenda and the guest has his.

The guest is swimming in a welter of emotions, in the wake of the tragedy. A family member has died. The environment of the storm or the murders is still chaotic.

The network wants to “edit” these feelings, to convey something specific.”

The producer says to the guest, “What we want to do here is let our audience know how special your daughter was. How wonderful a person she was. We realize, of course, that you’re grieving. We understand and honor that. We do. In this interview, we really want to give you a chance, though, to tell the world what a special girl she was. Talk about her life, her interests, her hobbies, how she was thought of by the family and by friends at school. Honor her memory…”

Now, this may be the last thing on the guest’s mind. This grieving mother may be feeling angry, outraged. She is feeling absolutely desolate. She is feeling lost. Given the opportunity, she would express these feelings.

But this is not what the network or the anchor wants. The “program” at the moment involves “reflection on the happy moments of the child’s life.” It’s part of the pre-set storyline.

At this moment, for this grieving mother, the happy moments are the farthest thing from her mind. But who cares? She just fodder for the network’s agenda.

And if the producer is skillful enough, he can gently convince the mother that she should devote four minutes of commercially sponsored national television to “a celebration” of her dead child’s life.

Suddenly, it makes sense to the profoundly confused, profoundly searching mother. Yes. Why not? Why not go along with the program? She’ll have a video clip about her wonderful daughter forever. A scrapbook memory.

Under no circumstances, of course, will the producer or the anchor permit the mother to go on camera and show outrage and anger. That’s verboten. That cuts too close to the bone. That doesn’t fit the mandatory sequence of horror, shock, loss, grief, healing, resolution, celebration of a life lost.

The whole sequence is artificial. It’s imposed. It’s orchestrated. It’s a stage play, produced in great part through interviews with guests who have suffered loss and who are “real.”

Except they’re not. They’re programmed to deliver what the networks want.

And behind all this? Behind the mandatory spooled-out story line, which takes days to reveal in full, on television? The concealed anomalies and lies and contradictions in the commission of the crime and the ensuing cover-up.

The network story line hides as much of that as possible.

This is why the interview-prep is so important. Here is where the guests, before they go on camera, are nudged into the right slot, are shown what to focus on, are brainwashed into doing something they would never do.

Programming guests is a skill. Networks need people who can do that well. They have them. They pay them.

Anchor: I understand your daughter liked to make airplane models. Did you think that was unusual?

Mother: Well, at first we did. But she was good at it, and she enjoyed it so much, we became very enthusiastic about it. My husband introduced her to a buddy of his from the Air Force, and Cindy went up in a jet.

Anchor (smiling broadly): Really? A jet?

Mother: When she came home, she was overjoyed.

Anchor: Did she want to become a pilot?

Mother (laughing): For a few days. But her love of making models led her to want to be an artist. Our son is a graphics person. He taught Cindy to make computer pictures of our whole extended family. (laughing) We have lots of cousins and aunts and uncles. Cindy put their pictures all over the house. She knew everybody’s names when she was four…

Completely wacko. But that’s what the television audience sees and digests and accepts. And the anchor moves it right along. A fabricated story. Intercut, of course, with Cindy’s pictures and Cindy smiling and playing and drawing and sitting at the computer.

And when the dust settles and the mother is being chauffeured home from the interview, her mind wanders and she begins to think about the revenge she wants to visit on the killer of her daughter. As many good mothers would. But it’s too late. She’s already had her four minutes on television. She feels like a fool, but it’s too late.

She’ll never get to say to Diane Sawyer, “You know, Diane, I wish somehow I was there at the school, and I had a gun, and I shot that killer dead.”

No, that will never happen.

And mothers across America, who are feeling that they, too, would have wanted to be there, in the school, if their child was in mortal danger, and would have wanted to have a gun and shoot the killer dead to protect their child at all costs…those mothers will be, to a significant degree, reprogrammed by the Diane Sawyer interview, and they too will begin thinking of the happier times and the old days and the smiles and the laughter.

This is how a handful of television interviews with skillfully prepped guests can make all the difference in the world. Especially, in the case of Sandy Hook, when gun ownership is now at stake. Do I have to draw a picture for you?

Because, admit it, if you were the father or mother of a child who was murdered, wouldn’t you have at least a few serious thoughts about revenge? Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you think about the .45 you have in the closet upstairs?

Television, though, teaches you what to feel.

If after watching a number of these tragedies play out on television, you are completely reprogrammed into some grotesque version of “love everybody all the time and forgive everything,” and you need an outlet, a way to vicariously and subconsciously experience what you REALLY feel, you can always:

Go to the movies. The movies give you a different slant. You can be Mel Gibson killing people to get his kidnapped daughter back. You can be Charles Bronson wiping out street scum to avenge the loss of his wife. You can be Stallone or Arnie. You can roam the countryside spilling blood at every street corner.

The movies give you vicarious license to destroy evil. Television news takes it away.

It’s called the whipsaw effect, and it’s modern mind control, and it puts you in the “excluded middle,” where nothing happens and you remain locked up and passive.

Where the powers-that-be want you to remain.

Have a nice, nice day.

Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com


BATF & U.S. Marshals Gearing Up to Take on Gun Owners


Jan 3, 2012

The caller in the video below identified as Lt. McCoy of a North Carolina police department told Pastor Butch Paugh on December 28, 2012, that police are training for martial law this year.


Lew Rockwell: Gun Controllers Are the Most Violent People

Lew Rockwell

The LRC Blog
January 9, 2013

In my experience, gun controllers are violent people, and private gun-owners are not. That is, gun controllers support mass murder; they just want it to be a monopoly of soldiers, police, etc. They would be glad to see Alex and the rest of us shot.

Gun owners tend to abhor personal violence, and would only use it in defense of their family, themselves, and their property. And this is not a left-right issue. Non-commissar leftists like the late Alexander Cockburn are anti-gun control; neocons like Bill Kristol or the Randites are pro-gun control.

Here is something that all good people across the spectrum can agree on: the state should be disarmed; the people should be packing.


About this entry