listen here

Patriot Broadcast From the Trenches Schedule 

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Eric Holder: Executive Orders on Gun Control?

Washington Examiner – by Joel Gehrke

Attorney General Eric Holder indicated that President Obama might turn to executive orders to implement his agenda on guns in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting.

“The Obama administration will consider executive actions and specific proposals for legislation as part of its gun policy response to the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, U.S., Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday,” per Reuters.

Holder, who is traveling to Newtown today, said they are considering their options on executive orders: “Those options will have to include a ‘strong and robust’ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the chronically under-funded agency that enforces federal gun laws, he said.”

That’s the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that ran Operation Fast and Furious, in which U.S. law enforcement allowed drug cartels to purchase weapons in this country and smuggle them into Mexico.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-executive-orders-on-gun-control/article/2516519#.UNNhWm_AeSo

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
4933
Don't forget to answer the Security Question before you post comment.

19 Responses to Eric Holder: Executive Orders on Gun Control?

  1. leo bourne says:

    I live in the State Of Virginia and this is a copy of the email I sent every Congressman in my state as well as Senator Warner.

    Congressman XYZ,

    I am enclosing a copy of the letter I sent Senator Warner this morning on the Constitution and gun control. Thank you for your time.

    Dear Mr Warner,

    I hope this message gets to you before you vote on any Gun Bills. The recent fervor over the 2nd amendment is disturbing. I as a parent as well as someone who has lost a loved one at the hand of a gun, feel for the families of Sandy Hook. I remember feeling sick to my stomach as I heard the news report but I never felt the need to alter anyones right to bear arms.

    I also remember feeling sick to my stomach when I heard your response to this tragedy. You are an elected official of the state of Virginia. Your response should have been one of consolation and support to the families and that is it.

    The path you, Bloomberg and the president have chosen is a dangerous one. History has shown that tyrants do not fare well when the people have had enough. With the current state of the country, I feel the people are close to that point now and this attack of the 2nd amendment may push them over. The alternative media is on fire about this subject and I don’t like what I am reading. At the same time I don’t feel the need to limit the 1st amendment either.

    When you were elected you gave an Oath to defend the Constitution. You have been elected several times and have given the Oath each time so it should be clear in your memory. When the Constitution was written a musket was an assault weapon. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport, it was written to protect this country from enemies both foreign and domestic. As an elected official, who has given the Oath, you can vote only one way. You must protect the Constitution as written.

    Mr Warner, there is more than the firearm involved in these mass shootings. The firearm and pharmaceuticals. The firearm may be the vehicle but the pharmaceuticals are the fuel. I feel that if you have concerns about the current rash of shootings please investigate the pharmaceutical industry.

    Finally, please educate your daughter on how this country was founded and the Constitution. I feel the education system has failed her as it has failed many in this administration. The following is an article that may aide your daughters education on gun control.

    A Citizen of the State of Virginia and the United States of America,
    Leo Bourne

    The Supreme Court’s rejection of Chicago’s handgun ban inMcDonald v. City of Chicago is more than a recognition that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. The McDonald decision is a harbinger for the end of gun prohibition as an idea. The simple, undeniable truth is that gun control does not work.
    • US Supreme Court: Citizens must be permitted to use handguns for self-defense: Treaties Do Not Supersede The Second Amendment!

    McDonald brings the law up to speed with reality, where advocates of gun control have been wrong since the issue became a national discussion.
    Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns.
    Racism created gun control in America. Confronted with the prospect of armed freedmen who could stand up for their rights, states across the South instituted gun-control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the depravity of the Klan.
    Fast forward to the 1960s, when a century of institutionalized racism began to come to an end. While racism was no longer the driving force, social change, the drug trade, and the assassination of several national figures turned gun control into an article of faith amongprogressive politicians. They saw the elimination of guns as the only way to counter the rapid increase of crime in inner cities.

    As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of “self-defense.” In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.” Republican Martin Luther King, Jr
    Truly onerous gun control came to fruition only in a minority of jurisdictions, predominantly those run by Democrat machines. The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983. With each failure of gun control, the rejoinder was to do it again, this time with feeling.
    Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia’s handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago’s streets.
    Three times in the last month, Chicago residents have defended their homes or businesses with “illegal” guns. In the first, an 80-year-old Navy veteran killed a felon who broke into his home. In the second, a man shot and wounded a fugitive who burst into the man’s home while running from the police. In the third, the owner of a pawn shop killed one of three robbers in self-defense, sending the other two running.

    The Illinois legislature, confronted with clearly justified shootings like these before, created an affirmative defense for those who violate local gun bans when unregistered guns are used in self-defense. Then–state senator Barack Obama voted against this law, which passed by an overwhelming majority and over then-governor Rod Blagojevich’s veto.
    In passing this exception, Illinois recognized the basic injustice of the Chicago gun ban. Otherwise law-abiding citizens are victimized at a high rate. Chicagoans cannot depend on the police to defend them, cannot sue the city because the law protects officials from liability for failure to protect them, and are barred from effective means of self-defense.
    Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, the de facto ban against self-defense will be overturned and Chicagoans will not have to rely on the discretion of prosecutors and the benevolence of legislators to affirm their inalienable right to self-defense.

    Veritas – Truth : Aequitas – Justice
    Advocates of gun control will not be swayed by the Supreme Court’s holding in McDonald. No matter the evidence, the rallying cry will continue: If gun control “saves just one life” it will be worth it. This plea ignores the irony of crusading for individual safety by disarming all of society. That logic can now be squarely turned on the advocates of gun control. If it saves just one life — or many, since jurisdictions with more legally owned (and carried) guns tend to have less violent crime — we should create a sensible legal framework for gun ownership that does not hamper the right of individuals to exercise self-defense.
    A generation from now, legal and policy discussions will look back and see gun control for the sham that it has always been. The real shame is that it took decades of political action, millions of dollars in litigation, and thousands of lives lost to end the preposterous idea that governments can reduce the number of victims of violent crime by first taking away their means of resistance.
    — David Rittgers is an attorney and legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
    National Review

    • US Marine Fighting Tyranny says:

      Hi leo,

      I applaud your sincere effort and desire,.. the truth is, when these elected officials get their laughing under control after reading any part of your request,.. they will just as quickly line their bird cage with it, ot just file it under 86 (meaning, in the trash).

      The proper solution NEVER puts them in a postion where they can elect to perform the request or not..

      A proper solution is one that can be enacted without them, and then puts them in a position of reponding to that if they care to.

      Example: We arrest, try, & convict all of the treasonous filth in gov’t,… and then hang them.

      Their response,… they can die making choking sounds,.. or not.

      The road to recovery will then have begun.

      JD – US Marines – Day 7 of 2nd American Revolution.

      • leo bourne says:

        Hi JD,

        I felt I had to do something, just like back in 2009 when I attended the original Tea Party March on Washington. Here is a video I made from that day, I am behind the camera while my friend 714 was in front of the camera.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsE_LL9Rl88&list=UU2Y2zvqeenJjRYcpEoUzsSA&index=3

        That march was a protest taxes and the upcoming vote on obamacare. The news that day said that there were 75,000 people there, it was more like 500,000. I felt that day, the participants, had accomplished something. We came in strength, voiced our opinions and went home without burning the place down. The politicians passed obamacare anyway. I guess nothing gets done unless fire is involved.

        You and I know what is coming but that doesn’t mean you have to like it. It is like taking out the trash, you know you have to do it, you just don’t want to do it. The cards are being dealt now and we each will have to play our hand. I just hope that most don’t fold and fade into the shadows. You know like every French soldier post Napoleon.

        This is a time for leaders and heros, good luck my brother.

  2. REDHORSE says:

    So if we become drug cartel then WE can get our stuff from the ATF right?
    NO! That isn’t how it works?Letting the ATF handle this is like putting berny madolf in charge of a ponzi operation to make sure it’s running right.

  3. chris says:

    HAHAHAHA
    DO IT BY EXECUTIVE FIAT, I DOUBLE DARE YOU.

  4. bargain bob says:

    the good ole batf? the same scumbags who murdered all those innocent children in Waco.. now it’s batfe, Big Ass Targets For Everyone?

  5. Henry says:

    @Redhorse

    Why yes Redhorse you can. The executive orders will not apply to illegal gun shipments south of the border to our friends in Mexico. Take the guns from here and ship them to there.

  6. NC says:

    Guys, I just came back from 2 Walmarts, Academy of Sports and Outdoors and another gun store and they are packed with people buying guns and assault rifles and are all out of 9MM bullets.

    This is not Christmas shopping folks. This is panick buying. People know what’s going on and if this is a weekday afternoon, I can’t imagine what the weekend will be like. The store associates say they can’t keep the bullets in stock and the gun store that I went to said that they cannot reach their distributors because their services are either down or closed.

    It’s getting real, REAL fast, people. Be prepared!

    • Large Scale Aggressor says:

      Went to my local gun shop yesterday, it was like a mob scene. Half a dozen people at once filling out DROS forms. Empty shelves and displays. Got the last S&W .40 he had in stock. Owner says his suppliers are telling him it may be months before they can resupply some guns. There were even two MILFs with the kids in tow buying.

      Noticed the price of the high capacity magazines for my .40 went up $10 overnight on my favorite website for magazines.

  7. Alberet says:

    ATF — WACO — DEAD ATF
    As long as “our” politicians think they have the right to “revisit” the 2nd Amendment, they might decide they have the right to “revisit” some OTHER Amendments.
    The Politicians have decided they can “reintroduce” TORTURE, so they might as well “revisit” the 13th Amendment and revisit SLAVERY.
    The Republicans did not like all those Female votes gong to Obama, maybe they will “revisit” the 19th Amendment and END Women’s Suffrage(voting).
    I am sure you can find many more “revisits”
    I believe “our” Politicians should just keep their hands off OUR Constitution.

  8. Mark says:

    I cannot think of a faster way to initiate a civil war in the USA then for BO to use executive orders to try to limit people’s access to firearms. I predict 100,000 dead law enforcement officers and other government officials the first day if he tries. It would make Gettysburg look like a church picnic.

    • NC says:

      As Han Solo played by Harrison Ford says in “Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope”,

      “Bring it on! I prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around.”

  9. RobW says:

    Does anyone smell overt dictatorship, and martial law?

  10. Patrick Conway says:

    You folks should see the gun kiosk at the Ft. Knox, KY PX. I didn’t even expect it to be open after the Sandy Hook shooting because the miltary usually pussys out after something like this. but they are selling so many guns that the PX aisles in that area are totally congested. Active duty and retired. Buying assault rifles and handguns and ordering what’s not physically available. Everyone knows what to expect.

  11. scott says:

    F#@k Holder.
    F#@k “executive orders” that “decree” what I was born with is now under the control of politicians.
    They’re not my boss.

  12. Lady Liberty says:

    You will be like lambs being led to the slaughter if you give up your weapons!

    INNOCENTS BETRAYED – The TRUE story of GUN CONTROL

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg

    EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016
    U.S. military officers are told to plan to fight Americans

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/the-civil-war-of-2016/#ixzz2FgxvRS22

  13. Rick Costello says:

    If there were no gasoline, would people buy cars anyway to display in their driveways? If people absolutely ‘knew’ that voting was a ridiculous and pathetic waste of time, would they go out and do it anyway? If ‘hunting’ were illegal, would people buy hunting rifles anyway merely to ‘have them’? Now if a reasonable person ‘believed’ the government was going to outlaw certain classes of firearms and there was a very real possibility that there was NOT going to be a grandfather clause, would they buy these classes/styles of weapons anyway knowing full well they may have to turn them in or become branded a felon or domestic terrorist?

    The answer to all these questions is a resounding NO!

    Without coming right out and saying it, perhaps even not admitting it to themselves in the deepest areas of their brains what the rush to purchase battle rifles & the appropriate ammo means is that if they “‘believed’ the government was going to outlaw certain classes of firearms and there was a very real possibility that there was NOT going to be a grandfather clause” then they (in their heart of hearts) actually DO expect to use them. The only use for them, under the circumstances, is resistance to tyranny. Therein is the ‘message’ to the government.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What is 7 + 6 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)