635744827508201345-veteran

President Obama has said time and again that his greatest disappointment was that he was unable to enact new gun control legislation to further restrict the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. In an effort to do an end run around Congress and enact some of that legislation, the Obama administration enacted some new policies that would make it impossible for some disabled vets to purchase guns and might even lead to their existing firearms being confiscated. That very nightmare scenario — the VA forcibly confiscating the firearms of a disabled veteran — almost happened in Idaho yesterday, but the VA was stopped in its tracks by a grassroots group of local residents. And the sheriff. And some politicians. All of whom stood on the man’s front yard to prevent the confiscation.

From the AP:

A group of residents in northern Idaho lined up outside a U.S. Navy veteran’s house on Thursday to protest claims that federal officials are planning on confiscating the man’s weapons.

Idaho Republican state Rep. Heather Scott of Blanchard said the Veteran Affairs office has sent a letter to John Arnold of Priest River warning him that he cannot possess or purchase firearms.

The protest -spearheaded by Scott- attracted roughly 100 people. Among them were Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, who promised to stand guard against any federal attempts to remove Arnold’s guns, and Republican Washington state Rep. Matthew Shea of Spokane Valley, who described the event as a “defiance against tyranny.”

“I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and uphold the laws of Idaho,” Wheeler said. “This seemed appropriate to show my support. I was going to make sure Mr. Arnold’s rights weren’t going to be breached.”

During Thursday’s demonstration, the group at times broke out in song to sing “God Bless America” and pray while waving both the American flag and the “Don’t tread on me” flag. With a population of just 1,700, Priest River is near the tip of northern Idaho- a region known for its strong tea party roots and gun-rights activism.

According to local news sources, the VA had sent the man a letter stating that an inspector was going to come to his house on the 6th to inspect his firearms and confiscate them. The VA confirmed that they sent the man a letter, but they deny that the VA has the power to confiscate guns from anyone. Which is true — the VA has reportedly been working with the FBI as their muscle to perform the actual confiscations. From the article on that particular issue:

A memo from February of 2012 was first obtained by the Daily Caller and titled “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM,” has been causing quite the stir.

This particular memo dictates that the VA must submit veterans health-related information to the FBI by way of encrypted compact disc and mailed quarterly. It states that the records will be used to update the NICS or National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

A separate document revealed that the VA provides a monthly list of veterans who have been rated by the VA as incapable of managing their VA benefits. A simple act of changing ones banking information could get a veteran on this list, as well as refusal to take the VA prescribed pills.

There’s a very dangerous game being played here. Much like with the terrorist watch list, people could be added to these secret no-gun lists at any time (and even by mistake) and then get a lovely knock on their door from the friendly local FBI agent to come violate their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

In this case it looks like a paperwork change has caused this chain of events to kick off. Some people are saying that there’s a well known process for milking the VA for a little more change in the monthly disability check that involves declaring yourself unable to manage your own finances. That doesn’t mean the vet in question actually has any mental issues at all — it simply means that he claims he can’t balance his checkbook and needs someone to do it for him. In the eyes of the VA that apparently puts him on the same level of the crazy scale as James Holmes and qualifies for firearms confiscation. The end result is that the disabled vet in question now has to spend his own time money and effort to prove to the VA that he isn’t dangerous before they stop trying to confiscate his firearms. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

The ongoing stigma against people with a mental disability has made them an easy target in the gun control arena. President Obama and the rest of the gun control cheering squad have been using people with mental issues as a favorite whipping post, blaming everyone with even a slight case of ADD for all the gun related ills of the world. What you see here is the end result: people with mental disabilities having their rights trampled without any due process simply because Obama and Bloomberg think that they are an easy target.

139 Responses to BREAKING: VA Tries to Confiscate Disabled Vet’s Guns, Stopped by Citizens and Sheriff Standing Guard

  1. This is why I don’t have dealings with the VA. Incompetent political hacks. How were they gonna take his gun? Does the VA have a swat team?

    • Wanna bet that they don’t?

      I’m sure that if the Department of Education can justify a SWAT team, so can the VA.

      • Well… if so, hopefully they (The SWAT Team) will have been trained by the teacher’s unions… in which case, they will be completely useless.

      • We’ve been dealing with the same VA this gentleman deals with and I can’t imagine anything like this taking place unless he confided to some staff member that he had thoughts of suicide. In which case the VA would not reveal that info under the HIPPA law so the public would be obliged to think whatever the veteran himself broadcast around his neighborhood.

        • The last time I went for a check up, the Dr asked me a battery of questions. These question were often repeated in a different manner, intended to trick people into stating that they often have feelings of homicidal/suicidal anger/depression. There were also subtle questions about how many guns I own etc.I flatly refused to answer the medical interrogation. As for my guns, I rattled off an elaborate list of every Star Wars and Star Trek weapon I could recall.

        • Right. The VA is so righteous and would NEVER do anything the least bit illegal. WAKE UP!!!!! They are run by our corrupt government!!!!!

      • The VA has no law enforcement authority off VA property. When VA Police Officers or Criminal Investigators have to conduct an investigation off Federal property they cannot legally carry a firearm under the color of law. Because of this they remove the ammunition from their firearms while off property. Most VAs even have SOP that prohibits their officers from pursuing vehicle off VA property except in circumstances that are violent felonies. The VA may have had case workers there but the LEOs had to be from a different gov organization.

    • The article states that the FBI does the actual confiscation via a letter of understanding between the FBI and the VA.

    • For those unaware, the VA does have its own police force, who are, of course, federal law enforcement agents with no limits of jurisdiction within the U.S. I’ve had the unfortunate opportunity to interact with them after one determined my speed, by eyeball, to be 23 mph in the 15 mph VA hospital campus.

      • I’ve found it rather ironic that the Atlanta VA has several brand new Dodge Charger police vehicles. Let’s see, a 150mph car on a campus so cramped a golf cart has trouble hitting top speed. Makes sense to me.

        Tom

        • I think they all got new cars recently. Their motto sounds so corny somehow too, “Protecting Those that Served”.

        • It’s the government. Spending your money, not their own. So why not splurge on a fast car when you are one of the more-equals.

        • I used to have a Charger for a patrol car. Working for a small city, they decided to get us the v6 version. There is no real way to have anything besides a full size car for a patrol car, though, and still have room for a computer in the front and prisoners in the back.

          The bigger question is why do there need to be so many federal law enforcement agencies. For that, I have no answer.

        • Hasdrubal:

          Jealousy combined with predilections for empire building. Exists in every bureaucracy I’ve ever had the misfortune to interact with.

      • Actually most VA police have VERY small jurisdictions, and are quite limited. If you start talking about the inspectors and agents that’s one thing, but the VA ‘police’ are usually relegated to a tiny area.

        • Okay, so next time one is yelling at you about how he is a federal law enforcement agent, mention that to him and let me know how that works out.

      • They do have police but they are limited to federal property. Don’t be alarmed they have no power to leave federal property and confiscate your weapons. Believe me.

    • Wheeler is my sheriff. He has always said he would buck the Feds over gun control. This is earning my vote again.

      • From what I understand, the sheriff is the top law enforcement entity in the county.

        The feds can’t arrest anyone or even operate in his county without his permission.

        At least by law. But with the amount of lawless behavior by the feds and the courts, that is probably ignored quite abit, especially if the sheriff is a weakling or a statist worshiper

        • It’s looking as if, in many instances, Sheriffs are going to be the ones organizing the boots-on-the-ground resistance to tyranny. The people are fed up and Sheriffs of all elected officials are the most connected with the people, especially in rural jurisdictions. They’re usually conservative, independent, and when we need a duly-elected local official who has the guns and balls to stand in the way of the Feds, and who isn’t beholden to anyone except the people he represents, they’re the obvious choices.

    • The VA having a SWAT team is no more believable than a bunch of crazy BLM cowboys switching from rounding up wild horses in the desert, to SWAT team Extraordinaires

    • OK. VA sends these letters out daily – to veterans who they have found to be incompetent to handle VA funds (i.e. disability comp., pension, etc). VA sends a copy to the FBI or the ATF, I don’t remember which. That being said, no one can take the vets weapons UNLESS he has been found mentally incompetent by a court or been an in-patient in a mental facility. Also, since no crime has been committed, the Feds cannot take the weapons without paying fair market value. 5th amendment REQURES Due Process. VA does not have the ability to provide that. Yes, VA has SWAT teams, but doubtfully in Idaho. Probably only in major sites (LA, Chi, DC, etc). However, without permission o9f the local law enforcement agency, they have no jurisdiction off of VA property.

      • VA has swat teams. LMAO. The only ones I know are the ones in Los Angeles VA who are wants a be. But are rather quick reaction force for incidents on VA property. Do don’t be alarmed. They are not equipped for the confiscation on a mass level. Hell VA police unarmed for many years since inception in 1970 as a guard force. Recently armed in late 1990’s. Common folks educate yourselves.

  2. Did any anti-gun “powers that be” actually go to this man’s house? Was there any confiscation attempt other than the (heinously unconstitutional) letter?

  3. Well, the New Red Dawn movie got one thing Right: Resistance began near the Washington-Idaho border. Not Chinese, not Koreans. Feds. Anyone remember where Ruby ridge was?

    • May want to mark this day on the blackboard boys and girls ( 8/7/2015 )

      I hope and pray this vet doesn’t go out and do something stupid . Those people in that yard better keep a close eye on this fellow and make sure he isn’t visited by any men in black suits .

      Love the support these folks in Idaho showed . God bless .

  4. My State rep was there?

    Out-standing! I knew there was a reason or 3 for me voting for him.

    As a fellow disabled vet, I am appalled to hear of this. I hope I receive no similar letters…

  5. When I was leaving active duty back in 2009, one of the places you had to go was to a VA briefing. They needed everyone to declare what kinds of injuries and ailments they had as a result of their military service- and because this was a briefing by government bureacrats, they encouraged everyone to continue the VA’s reason for existing by listing as many problems as possible, to maximise the hopeful benefits check.

    They also hinted very strongly that we should all claim PTSD, regardless of if we actually suffered from it at all, because nobody can be clearly shown to not have it. Unlike, for example, if you have knee pain but there is no record of you ever going to sick call, no record of the doc referring you higher for treatment, no record of any incident during training you can point to so the injury can be explained.

    Now, I refused to claim any disability for ethical reasons. A friend from my old unit was denied any money for his pretty serious back problems, almost certainly caused by all the gear we had to wear, but got an equal amount for the PTSD he never had. I view that as ethically neutral, but now I worry that he will eventually get caught up in this same kind of mess.

    • I went through the same thing while receiving a medical discharge for a blown-out back, which resulted from an IED going off underneath my 998 while I was behind the .50. The DAV rep actively encouraged everyone in the briefing to claim PTSD when submitting their medical records for our VA disability rating. Out of the dozen or so guys there, I was the only one to refuse doing so. I had watched the NICS Improvement Act of ’07 (otherwise known as the Veteran’s Disarmament Act) get passed, and I knew what was coming down the pike. Even after the VA lowballed my rating, I stymied all efforts by various medical types to be designated as having PTSD. Even so, I had one particularly bullheaded & hoplophobic VA psychiatrist (assigned due to my admission of being homeless) insist that no matter what I said, I have PTSD, and entered as much into my medical records. And within the past couple years, the VA clinic started asking me about my owning firearms as part of the vitals-screening during routine checkups. At that point, I stopped going to the VA for any reason.
      Since my suspicions have now been realized, they have been replaced by the fear that one day I’ll receive a similar letter or knock on my door.

      • If you receive the threat give ttag notice, if your not too far and Im able due to work or family obligations Ill camp out on yr lawn too.

      • You realize that your refusal to accept help, irrational fear of authority and inability to manage your life (homeless) are all strong indicators that you suffer from PTSD? That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have access to weapons, but it does mean you might need help.

    • Yes, I personally know two vets who are getting monthly “disability” checks for PTSD. Neither one of them was ever in harms way, or even close, during their tours. In fact, one of them was an Intel guy who was never deployed and never left a comfy air conditioned office his entire 4-year enlistment. He is now apparently a “disabled vet” who has PTSD.

      There is MASSIVE fraud in the VA disability system, but in many circles it remains politically incorrect to even acknowledge this fact. Heck, I’ve even encountered a few vets who have engaged in heaping amounts of moral relativism and argued that the fraud is irrelevant because, gosh darn it, they served and are entitled to ANY money they can get. Even if the truth is fudged a little bit (or a a lot) to get that money.

      For those who aren’t TRULY disabled, it’s the same mentality that causes people to think it’s their “right” to get food stamps every month.

      This all makes me wonder why this particular guy (in the article) is “disabled” to begin with. I see a lot of righteous indignation here from people who presumably don’t actually know WHY this guy has been labeled as mentally defective. You’d think people might want to know that before getting all bent out of shape and jerking their knees. It may be this guy is in fact looney toons, and has no business owning guns. Do we actually know? And if we don’t, why are we protesting?

      • That’s awfully preachy about the VA disability, and I don’t think there is any moral relativism involved. Quite simply if you can qualify for a government program I see nothing wrong with you taking advantage of it. (There would be a problem is you only got there through fraud and lying, but assuming you didn’t…) At the same time, you can recognize that a program is a bad idea. I’m sure you’ve gotten an income tax refund and maybe even planned your finances to maximize that refund. I don’t see the VA disability any differently.

        Full disclosure, I am a disabled veteran. Do I think the system is right and fair? Probably not. Do I honestly qualify for benefits without lying? Yes.

        Regardless of anyone’s service record, if they volunteered to serve and came out with problems they didn’t have going in, they are owed something for that. The country (all of us) owe them for being willing to serve and having that willingness resulting in long term problems. Not only that, but you’d probably be surprised how many of the veterans you don’t consider disabled may have left the military, against their will, for medical reasons. So yes, you have PTSD for any reason, you probably do deserve your VA disability.

        Remember too, that it is just recently that we are recognizing how much the stresses of being in the military can have a long term effect on someone’s mental health. Many of these veterans might have just been cast off to fend for themselves in the past and ended up homeless, drug addicts, recluses, or “going postal”, at least now they are getting treatment for the problems that result from their service.

      • It’s amazing how som (vets) are trying to discount this vet. Tim you must live in LALA land….The VA has already admitted thay sent a letter …Also you smart ass those that are there saw the letter…..Im 100 percent disabled. I have injuries that go baxk to Nam. …I sure as hell didnt ask FOR it asswipe….I come from the old school….We dont trust our goverment. I live day to day asking my self am I next?I will tell you and anyone else. If thay ever come to my home I will die on a big pile of brass.Thay will be meet with FIREPOWER.

        • What do you mean I live in lala land? I was trying to point out that other should not discount VA disability status, and should accept that some people really do have problems.

          Since I didn’t mention you directly, and said nothing bad about anyone receiving any type of VA disability rating and you jumped to immediately aggressive, I now understand why you might be a prohibited person. Your anger and defensiveness and lack of comprehension indicate you could be a dangerous person to have roaming the streets unescorted.

      • It doesn’t matter if he is loony toon or not. The constitution forbids the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
        For the VA to make such a determination without a court hearing is an infringement on his due process.

      • Finally, a voice of reason among the Chicken Littles. The sky is not falling. Pro 2nd Amendment folks, like myself, say “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” and we stress the need to make sure felons, drug addicts, and “crazy” people don’t get them. All the mass shootings I can think of were caused by nut cases who should not have had weapons. You can’t bitch when law enforcement seeks to prevent mass killings by getting guns away from folks who most of us would agree should not have them. And to make the excuse that maybe this guy was just pretending to be wacko to get a bigger disability check is ridiculous. If he wants to defraud the government, then he should be prepared for the consequences of his actions. If he, on the other hand, says that he is truly mentally disturbed but wants guns anyway, he has convinced me he is unbalanced. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  6. What you see here is the end result: people with mental disabilities having their rights trampled without any due process simply because Obama and Bloomberg think that they are an easy target.
    or people without mental disabilities having their rights trampled without due process.

  7. Good on this county sheriff too…I see what can happen with just a little non-compliance(Bundy ranch anyone?).

  8. So, considering the order to remove his guns is unconstitutional, would that not make any attempt by the FBI to seize his firearms a crime, i.e., burglary, armed robbery, aggravated assault, attempted murder, etc.? Would it not be justifiable for the local police to apprehend those FBI agents? If officials at the VA conspire to take his guns, is that not a crime? In the early days before the American Revolution, there are reports of a number of incidents where colonists arrested British troops for various crimes related to overstepping their authority. Is this not one of those situations? Shouldn’t the state begin investigating and filing criminal charges against one or more employees of the VA? In this incident, the local police stood up for freedom, and for that, they have my absolute respect.

    • “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.” John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

      “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

      “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

      “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

      “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    • I am 100% behind this vet. That being said I have worked with the feds on many levels, very pleasantly, But they scare the hell out of me.

      Basically, it is not unconstitutional until a judge rules that it is unconstitutional. I am sure if they ever come out they will have some type of order. It may be just an order from an administrative law judge but in their world I am sure that does it.

      All they have to do to get want they want is to withhold his benefits until he complies.

      I hope the Sheriff will keep a deputy posted there so we wont have a situation like what happened to Patty Konie in New Orleans after Katrina where Police Officers, acting without an arrest or search warrant punched their way into her house tackled her, punched her in the face, then took her to the airport and put her on a jet out of state. There was no “martial law” and no legal authority to do it, but they had all the firepower, so they did. B.T.W. her 1983 lawsuit was thrown out of court. She is at 1:50 on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkUG1F2JiI

  9. For you folks not familiar with Idaho, Priest River isn’t very far from Ruby Ridge. I don’t have to tell you about that. You would think the feds would have learned their lesson after that little stunt. I’m a native Montanan, lived in Idaho and now live in the district of Matt Shea and I can tell you with certainty, the feds are going to get their asses kicked trying this bullshit in Idaho.

    • Learned what lesson? As far as I can tell, there weren’t any negative repercussions for any of the Feds involved in Ruby Ridge. The Weavers got steamrolled and murdered, and the government paid out a few million taxpayer dollars in settlements.

      The lesson appears to be that the system is corrupt enough that federal agents can get away with murder, at least as long as the victims aren’t very telegenic or sympathetic, and I think the Feds have learned it well.

      • And that was back in the 90s. Back when people were openly carrying targets with the bulls eye on Slick Willy’s head to firing ranges with nary an eyebrow raised. And Bo Gritz and like mindeds were actively preparing for secession, TEOTWAKI or whatnot.

        Now?! After Bushie 2 and “our party” got elected, and some house fell down close enough to Wall Street to inconvenience some bankster, even those who ought to know better, can’t seem to help falling all over themselves praising the oppressors and giving them not just the benefit of the doubt, but indeed the benefit of even no doubt whatsoever. All the Feds have to do to this guy, is manufacture some story he has taken some drug some time. And then sit back as the well indoctrinated lynch mob chants Gitmo, Gitmo!!!

        • ” some house fell down close enough to Wall Street to inconvenience some bankster, ”

          ESAD, losertarian.

  10. The thing is that the mass killers such as logner Tucson Shooter had to appear before a judge to have his gun rights removed (to much of a bother so the Authorities took no action) but a faceless bureaucrat in the VA and Social Security Administration can take away the rights of a Veteran or a disabled senior citizen without due process.

    They need to file suit in federal court and get an injunction against this program.

  11. Good for them. Absolutely disgusting what the VA has been subjecting veterans to. Withholding care, losing records, and submitting vets to NICS. There’s more outrage over the stupid lion than the hundreds of vets who died on secret waiting lists.

  12. So, conventional wisdom is correct, bullys will usually back down, if confronted with someone willing to fight.

    • Yeah, but the problem is that the .gov can come after you whenever it wants after the hype dies down. I’m waiting for some of the individuals at the Bundy Ranch that have since went back to their normal lives to start getting picked up by the feds in their home towns. It’s only a matter of time.

      • So over a year and you are still waiting.

        Yeah, it might happen. Or pigs will fly tomorrow. Anything can happen.

        But, we don’t live on “what might happen.” We face the situations in front of us right now…here. Today.

        • Yes. Over a year later, I’m still waiting. The same guy is still in charge at the BLM in the Great Basin region and he’s the type that doesn’t forget being shown up.

      • The government probably doesn’t consider anyone who was involved in that tangled situation worth the effort to pick up. That was a classic case of both sides being wrong.

        • I’m sorry?

          How was the veteran wrong?

          How were the people who were betwixt him and the gun-grabbers wrong?

          I don’t see how either side was wrong, on the local level. FBI field office following orders from on
          “high,” and the constabulary defending a vet.

          The only thing wrong was the present administration’s, <- small "A", edict.,,

        • Spectre I think he was referring to both sides in the Bundy Ranch incident being “in the wrong”. Not the VA confiscation incident(s)

  13. Outstanding! I am encouraged by the kind of support we have in some of our communities, whether Veteran or 2A supporter, we should all stand together because we are free Americans!

  14. If only there was some current indicator of how oppressive and incompetent government-run healthcare can be on individual liberty…

    I’ve said it before, gun owners arguing the mental health angle is a trap. Progressive anti-gun types do not believe in due process.

    • “I’ve said it before, gun owners arguing the mental health angle is a trap. Progressive anti-gun types do not believe in due process.”

      Agreed 100% on both points.

    • “All men are created equal.” Not “All men, aside from those sufficiently un-pc to offend some government shrink.” If a crazy has a gun, it is the duty of non crazies to deal with him properly, should he decide to act out his craziness using his gun. Until he does so, he has no less of a right to own and carry than anyone else.

  15. This is how revolutions start… one small event that sparks other similar events… that grow into something much bigger.

  16. Once again the wrong kind of white people are standing up for their civil rights and protecting those who are the target of government tyranny.

    Over 150 years ago government agents went to the homes of people who allowed run away slaves the protection of their home. In some cases hundreds of people surrounded the house to guard it against slave catchers and government police. Sometimes the police got shot. I think war is coming just as it did 150 years ago. The difference of today will be slave states like California and New York will not be sending soldiers to fight it.

  17. As the article noted, shouldn’t it be the other way around? Yes, you should not have to prove you have a Right because you already have it.

    The Trace. Right, no one is interested in confiscation. Ahh, the age old lie.

  18. If we allowed mentally disabled people to have those things inevitably great harm would come of it just as it does from guns (70% of the highest murder rate of all advanced democracies by a wide margin – in case you didn’t realize.) It really is quite a ridiculous and childish obsession this thrall to guns. I wouldn’t care but it has lead to saturating the country with guns and this has had grave consequences.

    The desire of pro-gun people for the mentally ill to have guns is hard to understand. Why do the mentally ill, several of whom have shot people lately have more rights to own guns than the public to be safe from them?

    Why is the ownership right higher than the right of people to a safe society? I think tranquility is also mentioned in the Constitution as best I recall. I can think of no ruling that gun ownership trumps a tranquil society. A tranquil society is why we arrest criminals.

    These gun nut commenters must be one of those brainwashed members of the NRA and this shoddy propaganda website
    .
    And sadly, instead of asking for that information, 90% of the people on here just start freaking out. This makes reasonable discussions about policies that might make sense impossible. Gun nuts are too scared and emotional to reason with.

    Scary thing is these low IQ rubes have guns in the first place. None of these gun nuts on here are possibly not mentally competent to possess sharp object let alone a gun.

    Yeah, a bunch of paranoid nutcases dream up some fake conspiracy and put a posse together to stand against the government (like they’d have chance against our military. )

    Why is this even news? No one is trying to confiscate anything. I saw nothing even remotely saying the govt was coming to take away his guns. The NRA is the mother of this brain washing.
    All the NRA cares about is how many guns that gun manufacturers can sell.

    • People don’t have rights, you sh*t stain. Individuals have rights. Each and every one of us. You begin to boor me you right wing closet nazi with your trampling of the rights of the individual.

      If you’re so incensed at us exercising our rights go to Idaho, kick in the man’s door and disarm him. Or shut the phuck up and let free men be.

      • Oooohhh, Ad hominen attacks, I’m so scarred and no research or links to back up your claims.

        You gun nuts are nothing but idiotic shrills that eat this crap up.

        Hate to break it to you, But your gun is 50 more times likely to kill you than protect you from fictitious threats of “evul men”.

        The only thing I here from commentators like you and everyone else on this extremist website who’s claims I many times destroyed with facts and reason is…

        “Them guvment tyranny missiles ain’t got nuttin on our bullets.”
        “2nd mendment! Everyone has a raht to weapons of mass destruction.”

        “Oh Billy Bob. You silly goose you.”

        1st of all : Defend your family against criminal? When is the last time a criminal walk into your place and try to steal some shit? When? Is it something common? Does it happen every weeks? I am going on a limb, and I would say that it rarely happens.

        2nd: Government tyranny? You know, with facebook, twitter, email, your cellphone, your id cards, and the IRS; the government got enough information that they could send 4 or 5 drones up your ass and shoot you, your car, and every passer-by, while you are on your way to work? How is your gun going to help?

        the federal government has fighter jets, predator drones and, in case of emergency, nukes. They have the biggest military budget in the history of ever, and if an armed militia starts attacking Americans, then the army will mostly side against the militia. An armed rebellion would not stand a chance.

        Why would the army side with the militias? They have a strict chain of command. And even if some defect, they don’t stand a chance against the rest of the armed forces. The US went through this once already, in 1860.

        Nobody is trying to confiscate your guns. It is more nonsense from the NRA and this shoddy propaganda website to get idiots to contribute to their wealth and you suckers fall for it everytime.

        Not surprising. Fear drives everything about the pro-gun movement, so paranoia and an inability to objectively reason can’t be far behind.

        Hahahahaha 7 years you idiots have been waiting for Obama to take your guns… NOTHING

        Kinda reminds me of you other idiots waiting 2000 years and NOTHING!!!

        Buy your tickets the *Gun-nut clown* circus is in TOWN.

        There is no right to a gun and the second amendment said civilians never had a right to own a gun.

        Where, oh where, does all this paranoia about confiscating guns come from?

        Why do gun advocates always feel that proliferation of handguns and concealed carry permits are the answer? In the last two cases, the law didn’t fail. The implementation failed. Disqualifying criteria were recorded incorrectly or not at all. Hopefully, audits of the FBI’s background check system will find those cracks and fill them.

        In the first example (Sandy Hook), a woman, living with her mentally ill son, legally stockpiled firearms. Her son used those firearms to kill her, 26 other innocent people and himself. According to the NRA, she should have been safe with all those firearms and ready to defend the “sheep” in society; instead, she financed a mass shooting. After the fact, the NRA recommended armed school guards as a solution. How about telling members, that not owning more guns than you can reliably secure is responsible gun ownership. Buying a cheap gun cabinet from Wal-Mart to satisfy some bare minimum gun security law is not responsible gun ownership. Many of those won’t stand up to a hammer or crowbar. What’s even worse is that, in places without gun security laws, many gun owners are satisfied storing their firearm in an unlocked nightstand or under their mattress.

        You don’t care about mental health, you don’t care about mass shootings or where America is in the world. You like guns. They give you power. Stop pretending like you’re on a conquest to make America safer by making lethal weapons readily available to people who you repeatedly call evil. We have 40% of the worlds guns, and exponentially more gun violence than other advanced countries. How many guns until we’re safe within our own borders, 50%? 60%? We tried the whole “armed nation” thing, and it isn’t working. The whole “law abiding citizen” thing is a joke. We don’t live in a world of good vs. evil. Thousands of “good guys with guns” kill people every year; people whose unlimited right to own guns has been protected by people like you. Take pride in that, JWM. It may be your only claim to hold on to..

        So no point in trying to stop loonies and criminals having access to guns? How many of your fellow citizens died last year? 30,000? You already have plenty of guns but it doesn’t seem to be addressing the problem so why would more of them and fewer restrictions help?

        “There’s nothing we can do to prevent random acts of violence.” False. Closing needless loopholes, such as unrestricted firearms sales at gun shows, will keep more weapons out of the hands of those mentally unstable citizens you call “evil”. More consistent, not tighter, laws will also prevent AMERICAN weapons from being those most used by drug cartels to murder throughout Latin America (research weapons used in the drug trade, most are bought illegitimately in our very own U.S. of A).

        Dude, your and every idiot gun nut on here is a broken record. Your verbosity is getting tiresome. Obviously, America has a unique gun problem that would not be solved by unrestricted access to more guns. Every time a mass shooting occurs, we can count of you and other gun nuts to start screaming for less restrictions on existing gun laws, and solution to this problem.

        You really need to stop drinking from the NRA and TTAG’s water cooler. The NRA nor TTAG doesn’t give a flying brick about your gun rights. They just want the gun manufactures to make more money.

        • Wow, willy. You’re a long winded frustrated tyrant wannabe. And either a liar or delusional. 2A absolutely gives me and all my fellow citizens the right to buy, carry and use guns.

          So go back to mda and give them their money back. You’re the lousiest troll ever to be on their payroll.

        • . “They give you power.”

          Out of all that rambling mess you at least managed to get this one right. It is indeed true that power comes from the barrel of a gun, both literally and figuratively. That particular power is historically the reason we have a freer society than any other in the world, with lower taxes, limited police powers, and complete freedom of the press to destroy this country even in the name of the First Amendment. Pretty ironic, no? Now you just might be of the opinion that we have too many mass murders and suicides, and while you may well be right in theory, the simple fact of the matter is that is the price of liberty. And when you get right down to it, it’s pretty cheap in the scheme of things, Willy.

          Everybody dies. Even you, Willy. It might help if you got down off your high horse and quit trying to rule the world. You and everyone else will be far happier for it. Why, peace might even follow like a storm and guess what – you’d have to find a honest job just like all the rest of us. Peace out….brother.

          Tom

        • Willy_Lunchmeat you are completely wrong and mentally handicapped.
          Lemme teach you a few things:

          USC Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

          (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

          (b)The classes of the militia are—

          (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
          (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

          USC Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 § 312 – Militia duty: exemptions

          (a)The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
          (1)The Vice President.
          (2)The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
          (3)Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
          (4)Custom house clerks.
          (5)Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
          (6)Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
          (7)Pilots on navigable waters.
          (8)Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

          (b)A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under s uch regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

          USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 331

          Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

          USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 332

          Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

          USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 333

          The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

          (1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

          (2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

          In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

          USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 334

          Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

          USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 18 › § 375

          The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

          USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 18 › § 378

          Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of the executive branch in the use of military personnel or equipment for civilian law enforcement purposes beyond that provided by law before December 1, 1981.

          A Well Regulated Militia

          “A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
          to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite:
          And their safety and interest require that they should
          promote such manufactories, as tend to render them
          independent on others, for essential,
          particularly for military supplies.”
          –George Washington
          First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

          The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1630. Over 5,000 men, women, and children made the two-month voyage to the New World, leaving the relative comfort and safety of England behind in an effort to break free of religious intolerance, and to manage their communities the way they saw fit. In doing so, their actions tread new ground in the country that would become the United States of America. On13 December 13, 1636, the Massachusetts General Court in Salem, for the first time in the history of the North American continent, established that all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to join the militia. The North, South, and East Regiments were established with this order. The decree excluded ministers and judges. Simply stated, citizen-soldiers who mustered for military training could be and would be called upon to fight when needed.

          Self-sufficiency proved instrumental. In a new land, hiring mercenary fighters in the European tradition to ward off Indian attacks would be impossible. For one thing, the colonists had no money. Other foreign interests in the New World such as the French or Spanish, even if they were available for defensive purposes, did not share English views on religion and political matters. They would have seriously undermined the stability of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Governing and policing the settlement would have to be left to the colonists themselves. Therefore, the militia system of self-defense brought from England had the best chance of succeeding for the colonists. Soon after the establishment of the militia in Massachusetts, the entire New England region defended itself against the aggression of the Pequot nation. Other colonies such as Connecticut and Rhode Island mustered militia units to fight the Indian tribe, and succeeded in forcing the Pequots to capitulate in 1638. Ultimately, the militia enlisted from the many small villages proved a strong component in building confidence for the settlement as a whole.

          During the Revolution the Continental Congress recognized the importance of having a body of men to reinforce the Continental, or Regular, Army and on July 18, 1775, recommended “that all able-bodied, effective men, between 16 and 50 years of age be formed into companies of militia.” They could be called out only with the consent of the State legislatures.

          The Constitutional Convention open on 25 May 1787, at a time when informed opinion identified three threats to national security: civil insurrections like the one that had occurred in western Massachusetts during the previous year, Indian attacks aided and abetted by the British on the frontier, and, more remotely, invasion by European powers. The delegates in Philadelphia set about providing the new national government with means to face these three possible threats. The delegates had to consider two different approaches to the development of military forces. One, reflecting the experiences of the Continental Army, held that the nation needed a trained, full-time military force capable of defeating an organized enemy on the battlefield; the other emphasized the traditional role of the citizen-soldier militiaman defending his home and region during short-lived emergencies. Seeking as broad a consensus as possible, the Convention chose to employ elements of both. Even Elbridge Gerry, probably the most extreme anti-centralist in attendance, did not object to the premise that the central government could establish a small peacetime military force. On 18 August 1787 the discussion shifted to the “Militia Clause” a much more emotional issue. In its totality, the Convention arrived at a very important set of decisions concerning military matters with relatively little disagreement. While the national government might employ the militia for the common defense, that authority was checked by the states, which retained authority to appoint their militia officers and to supervise the peacetime training of citizen-soldiers.

          Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of “militia clauses,” vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. Article I, Section 8; Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia – “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.” All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States. Article I, Section 8; Clause 16 gives Congress the power “to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish a state-based militia, to appoint the officers and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit federal power over State militias during peacetime.

          A majority decided on 28 September 1787 to forward it to the states for ratification. The opponents, who came to be called the Anti-federalists, tended to be inherently suspicious of any concentration of power. They feared a stronger national government because it was further removed from the people than the state governments and because of the potential they saw for abuse of power. Following the same logic, the Anti-federalists also opposed the creation of a peacetime army and sought to limit the nation’s military to the existing state-controlled militias. Their arguments were couched in terms used a century earlier in England against the Stuarts and in the American Revolutionary era against Parliament. The last two states to ratify followed much later. North Carolina approved on 21 November 1789 after the First Congress had already introduced a bill of rights. Rhode Island, finally accepted the federal system on 29 May 1790.

          Article I, Section 10 provides that no state, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded. Be sure to see the Second Amendment for more about this. The first 10 Amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment qualified Article I, Section 10 by ensuring that the f ederal government could not disarm the state militias. One part of the Bill of Rights, insisted on by the anti-federalists, states, “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.”

          The Second Amendment reference was quite specific: “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.” Eighteenth-century Americans understood the precise meaning of those few words and tied them directly to the basic militia clause in Article I of the Constitution. Creating a “well regulated” militia – that is, one with adequate organization, weapons, and training, uniform across the nation – ensured that, when mobilized, the militiamen could effectively carry out combat functions. This point had been fully articulated during the drafting of Article I. Mason and other advocates of the Second Amendment knew that during the last years of the Revolution many militia units had virtually disintegrated because they lacked sufficient arms. The amendment reinforced the original militia clause by stating this fact explicitly.

          The Militia Act of 08 May 1792 expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures. In those earlier days reliance for national defense was placed on the citizen soldier but without adequate provision being made for his training or equipment.

          The Militia Act of 1792 attempted to give additional clarification to the requirements and expectations of the militia: “to enroll …every free able-bodied white male citizen … and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enroll ed and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service,except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack…”

          Elbridge Gerry’s fear of militia neglect came to fruition within a generation at the outset of the War of 1812 when the various state militias performed in a manner ranging from ill-disciplined and near mutinous to well organized and heroic. Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British at New Orleans on January 8, 1815 confirmed what Americans wanted to believe, namely, that the nation could draw together a fighting force at the moment of need, not before, without elaborate and expensive pre-planning of a regular army and dependent upon the citizen soldier.

          For the 111 years that the Militia Act of 1792 remained in effect, it defined the position of the militia in relation to the federal government. Concern over the militia’s new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York’s example. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army’s primary organized reserve. The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force. Between 1903 and the 1920’s, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force.

          The US Supreme Court decided [5 to 4] June 26, 2008 in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms … The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved…”

          Heller was wrongly decided. Writing in dissent, Justice Stevens said that “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution…

          “In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act,the first major federal firearms law. Sustaining an indictment under the Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller — that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons — is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

          No new evidence has surfaced …. supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

          Support of any action that infringes on my constitutionally protected rights is punishable under Title 18 U.S.C., Section 241.

          From Norton Vs Shelby county: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

          I am not of the mind to give up any of my freedoms afforded to me by the Constitution. Others may choose to, that is fine. But they must realize that they have that ability because there are good people with guns ready to do whatever is necessary to protect their rights whether they agree with it or not. That is true love and true patriotism. If there were not a long line of like minded people standing at the ready, I fear that many people would not have the ability to publicly profess their beliefs in the manner in which we do today. That to me is sad. As they say a freedom not exercised, is a freedom lost.

          Banning guns will never solve the issue. There will never be any ‘gun buyback schemes” that will work. Criminals will never give them up willfully. There is only one thing these predators understand and that is power. I believe that we should give good honest law abiding people whatever tools necessary to defend their own lives and those of their families and loved ones.

          I am also of the opinion that “Gun free zones” must be abolished as they are a safe haven for predators to carry out their atrocious acts unchallenged.

          Constitutionally speaking, the militia and the citizenry are synonymous.
          They are one in the same, because the militia was and is made up of ALL able bodied men. As you know, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is to defend a member state and the citizens therein against an out of control, tyrannical federal government. Therefore th e 2nd amendment is just as important now as it ever has been considering the direction our federal government is going.

          As far as “assault weapons” are concerned, as long as those in power have them, so will I. As long as those who have the power and resolve to oppress me, I will be equally as armed as they are. Period.

          An assault rifle has three distinct characteristics according to the United States military.
          1. The firearm must be chambered to an intermediate cartridge.
          2. The firearm must have a detachable box magazine.
          3. The firearm must be capable of selective fire.

          It must have all three to be an Assault Weapon and #3 is already an NFA item.

          The United States of America is the greatest military power in the world. Our military capabilities far surpass those of any other nation on earth. The reality is: Take just two states of the union for this example we’ll choose Pennsylvania & Michigan; If only the portion of Michigan & Pennsylvania’s population which had hunting licenses took up arm s which is roughly 1,005,000 & 1,299,372 people (total 2,304,372), you would have the LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD by over nearly 1 million bodies. That doesn’t include non-hunters who are armed, sport & competitive shooters, recreational shooters prior military and law enforcement in those states. Add people the other states and the number grows to nearly incomprehensible size.

          This was part of the original thinking behind the 2nd amendment. Our system was designed to operate behind a system of checks and balances, and being equally armed as those who have the power is one of those checks and balances.

          The 2nd amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING. Think about it. Back then, people hunted for their food. It was the ONLY way to survive and feed one’s family. There were no grocery stores. Because hunting was a common and everyday activity, why in the world would the founders feel it necessary to guarantee the right to hunt in a bill of rights whose power is derived from God? They didn’t. Therefore, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is as I stated above.

          The moral of the story here is:

          We the People have loaned out power to you, the Government and ultimately have the ability to govern the Government through the constitutionally protected democratic process.

          Federal Statute in 10 U.S.C. § 502
          Enlistment oath:

          “I, (YOUR NAME HERE), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

          See the Order?

          0. solemnly swear(to God)
          1. support and defend the Constitution
          2. bear true faith and allegiance to the (same) Constitution
          3. orders of the President of the United States
          4. orders of the officers appoint ed over me
          5. regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
          6. So help me God

          As long as 3, 4 or 5 do not contradict 0, 1, 2 and 6.

          Declaration of Orders I Will NOT Obey because they contradict 0, 1, 2 and 6.
          (Yes, I am an Oath Keeper)

          Recognizing that I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that I am a guardian of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, I affirm and declare the following:

          1. I will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

          2. I will NOT obey any order to conduct warrant-less searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrant-less house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

          3. I will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

          4. I will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

          5. I will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

          6. I will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

          7. I will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

          8. I will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. I will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

          9. I will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

          10. I will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

          USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 241
          Conspiracy against rights

          If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

          They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

          Feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to give you a primer on the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and what the term Freedom means.

          Sincerely,
          Ryan E. Sexton
          SSG, US Army, Ret.

        • Your sources are superb. Oh there are none.

          “Hahahahaha 7 years you idiots have been waiting for Obama to take your guns… NOTHING”
          What do you think this article is about?

        • “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
          Sigmund Freud

          “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”
          Alan Dershowitz

          “Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
          Thomas Paine 1775.

          “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
          Thomas Jefferson

          “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.”
          James Madison

          “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
          Joseph Story

          “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
          George Washington – First President of the United States

          “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
          George Mason – Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

          “The strange American ardor for passing laws, the insane belief in regulation and punishment, plays into the hands of the reformers, most of them quacks themselves. Their efforts, even when honest, seldom accomplish any appreciable good.”
          H. L. Mencken

          Admitting he has lunchmeat for brains, Willie will never understand the forgoing.

        • Excellent, very well said Willy_Lunchmeat.

          If guns made people safer and the death penalty discouraged crime America would be the safest country in the world. They don’t, and it isn’t.

          Too bad the mental midget gun nuts, who must live in a constant state of fear and paranoia, cannot seem to grasp that.

          They probably turn to gun ownership to overcompensate for the fact that, deep down, they are cowards. And they are probably over compensating for having small dicks too.

          America could be great, but it is seriously effed up and much of that starts with its ridiculous gun culture. People in other western countries don’t need guns so why do Americans? People in other western countries don’t fear our governments, so why do Americans?

          Americans can be wonderful people, but as a collective you lot have seriously screwed things up.

          As for the Second Amendment, if you illiterate morons would learn to read you might understand what that Amendment actually means and what purpose it was intended to serve.

      • Again you and every other gun-nut on here has ever given me any reasonable evidence on how guns “help” us in some well nor any evidence on how trying to confiscate guns from potentially dangerous individuals is somehow a bad things?

        Love the blind “Yeehaw America” mentality, maybe if the police weren’t scared of being shot at by every civilian they encounter we’d have a functional police force.

        No, that is a very weak retort. And I want a reference if you are going to claim that. We are talking about how “bad” this situation is supposed to be along with deaths by guns. You cannot talk yourself out of that. Even if crime goes up, that is irrelevant because there is a justice systems that takes care of crime. And if that is your argument for guns, that’s just disgusting. With that attitude no wonder all the criminals tend to shoot people. Because of people like you who don’t care whether a criminal is dead or alive. While people are indifferent about criminals, they’ll surely be indifferent about the person they are robbing. It means that people being robbed are not much more civilized than the criminals..

        All this pro-gun crap is getting old! Don’t you know studies show that 98% of people who have guns committed murder?! Ignorance is really bliss. Get a penile implant if you really want to feel macho, just don’t contribute to gun violence by purchasing a firearm.

        This article again is nothing but inaccurate fear mongering.

        • Oh my, this is good stuff. Rich! Keep talking, Willy. The whole world is your oyster 🙂

          Tom

        • 98% of people that own guns commit murder? You truly are a mental patient, willy. You must be in a high end institution to get as much internet time as you get.

          98%. Jeez, what is that. Nearly a 100 million murders. It boggles the mind that you would be so far out of touch with reality as to put that number out there.

        • Well thanks for coming on over and wiping your a*s on the carpet there Meatboy.

          And you know the fact you lead with that line that you’re try to push proves that you don’t even have the beginning an understanding of the actual facts, statistics, history, constitutional law, behind this issue. And just as an FYI we in the hard core gun rights movement read everything you say and every asinine lie filled post you make. And we’re letting everyone else know where you’re lying. That’s why no one buys your garbage anymore. and the only reason your loudest voices have any voice in the media is because a media billionaire bought you a bigger soup box to yell off of.

        • 98% of gun owners commit murder?…..huh..that’s a lot of murders.
          No wonder the courts and police are screwed up, theyre trying to investigate and convict over 100 million murders. Lawl. You really are retarded

        • @willy
          “Hate to break it to you, But your gun is 50 more times likely to kill you than protect you from fictitious threats of “evul men”.
          -Evil exists which is not that hard to realize. Murder and rape are not good hearted ways to pass one’s time.
          My gun is an inanimate object and the presence of a firearm does not enhance my risk of harm. A gun on the table is the same risk as siting by my car in the open garage.

          “1st of all : Defend your family against criminal?
          -10 years ago in college an evil man died swiftly in my presence for that very offense. He kicked in a door, invaded, and died within moments from a single stab wound to the chest, and his friends were then held at gunpoint. I learned to never off body carry that day.

          ” When is the last time a criminal walk into your place and try to steal some shit?”
          -That happens everyday in America and around the world. My gun ensures that if my number is drawn for that horrible experience I will be able to resist from a position of advantage, because of my firearm.

          ” When? Is it something common? Does it happen every weeks? I am going on a limb, and I would say that it rarely happens.”
          -I wear my seat belt in case of the rarity of bad experience, and my gun is carried for the same.

          “the federal government has fighter jets, predator drones and, in case of emergency, nukes. They have the biggest military budget in the history of ever, and if an armed militia starts attacking Americans, then the army will mostly side against the militia. An armed rebellion would not stand a chance.”
          -10,000 men from the Hinterland could control any major metropolitan area within days.

          “Why would the army side with the militias? They have a strict chain of command. And even if some defect, they don’t stand a chance against the rest of the armed forces. The US went through this once already, in 1860.”
          -Most service men are people with honor and believe in the oath to the Constitution. Plus, they actually like the ideals of the Bill of Rights. Apply every limit you want on the 2nd to the 1st ,and maybe you would understand why the Bill of Rights was specifically protected from political whims.

          “Nobody is trying to confiscate your guns. It is more nonsense from the NRA and this shoddy propaganda website to get idiots to contribute to their wealth and you suckers fall for it everytime.”
          -Be honest and don’t resort to lying to prove your personal beliefs. States are already trying to confiscate legally purchased items.

          “Not surprising. Fear drives everything about the pro-gun movement, so paranoia and an inability to objectively reason can’t be far behind.”
          -It is not fear that drives the pro-gun movement(Americans) it is disgust that so many in the country have forgotten what America is. History is not kind to those people who have limited their options to fight back against violence.

          “There is no right to a gun and the second amendment said civilians never had a right to own a gun.”
          -The 2nd Amendment is my right as a citizen not a civilian. I am able and willing to fight for my country and my weapons are well maintained, which is the definition of “Well Regulated” at that time. It is uncomfortable for statist(loyalist) to know that the 2nd amendment was specifically intended to be used on them.

          “Why do gun advocates always feel that proliferation of handguns and concealed carry permits are the answer? ”
          -Reaction time is the difference between life and death, so I prefer multiple first responders on scene immediately.
          .
          “What’s even worse is that, in places without gun security laws, many gun owners are satisfied storing their firearm in an unlocked nightstand or under their mattress.”
          -Those who do that do not live in areas that tolerate thieves or they want immediate access to their defensive tool in case the need arises.

          “You don’t care about mental health, you don’t care about mass shootings or where America is in the world.”
          -It breaks my heart when ever innocents die but that is not cause to make more victims by idiotic policy. Take out certain democratic metropolitan areas and America is one of the safest in the world.

          “You like guns. They give you power. Stop pretending like you’re on a conquest to make America safer by making lethal weapons readily available to people who you repeatedly call evil.”
          -A gun does empower me to be able to protect all innocent life around me, at no cost to the tax payers. My mind is what gives me power, and my mind is my primary weapon.

          “We have 40% of the worlds guns, and exponentially more gun violence than other advanced countries.”
          -We have a violent people problem, which is contained in small geographic areas, and not a gun violence problem.

          “How many of your fellow citizens died last year? 30,000? ”
          -Gang bangers and weak minded people, who kill themselves are not my fellow citizens.

          “There’s nothing we can do to prevent random acts of violence.”
          -Carrying a gun is an immediate way to stop that violence.

      • JWM, I think you have Willie on the wrong side of the political spectrum. He doesn’t sound like anything but a hoplophobic progressive.

    • Willy_Lunchmeat derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp. Da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Willy_Lunchmeat is Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

    • Ya know what you keep missing Willy? They’re your rights too. Sure, you don’t care about them, you just want to troll and be obnoxious. The day will come when you look around and understand what Niemöller meant and that day, my little troll, that day you will wish you had a gun. Do you think after they strip away the rights you don’t care about from people you despise that they’ll stop at ones you do care about and people you love? I don’t hate you, I feel sorry for your children.

      • @coffee-
        ” Niemöller meant”

        I think that you are not understanding that things like lunchmeat are the Loyalists that Solzhenitsyn wrote about.

        “My faith in the Party(state) helped me, the fact that the evil was being done not by the Party and government but by the evil will of certain people.”

        That willful ignorance is what guides the statist like lunchmeat, and fear of his liberty minded countrymen is what makes it call Americans small dicked cowards. Loyalists like itself have to fear when the citizens are shrugging off state tyranny, because the loyalist life and entire bloodline is tied to the state maintaining control.

    • Ah, Billy Headcheese strikes again. I always enjoy it when he shares his ignorance with the group. It is most entertaining.

      • He’s funny when he’s mad. Huffing, puffing, foot stomping, I’m sure he’s holding his breath right now.

        The sad thing is that there are mental defectives who actually think this way. “98% of gun owners are murderers” is a new low for him.

  19. “Again you and every other gun-nut on here has ever given me any reasonable evidence on how guns “help” us in some well nor any evidence on how trying to confiscate guns from potentially dangerous individuals is somehow a bad things?”

    Constitutional rights do not need to be justified.
    “Why do you need to belong to that religion?” “Why do you need the right to say that?” That is one difference between rights and privileges.
    You may not like it, but it doesn’t change anything.

    Nobody takes issue with confiscating guns from truly dangerous individuals.
    Doing it en masse based on the whim of a faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat without due process is not what free countries that respect individual rights do. That matters to some of us still.

  20. I cannot bring myself to debate Lunchmeat. Maybe one of these days he will have an argument worthy of discussion, but this ain’t it.

    Either too much MSG in the lunchmeat or possibly way past the expiration date.

    Flip a coin.

    • Yeah, I don’t understand why people “feed the troll” by responding to Willy. Responding to him and showing a reaction is EXACTLY what he wants. And too many people here are all too willing to oblige him. What’s that quote about arguing with a fool?

  21. This can not be right… Does “I am here from the government and here to help you” no longer apply ?

    How far was this from Ruby Ridge ?

    • 40 or so miles from ruby ridge ( Naples )..My stomping grounds is just west of priest river… It’s normal in this part of the country for the people to back each other up when it comes to our rights… and equally normal to stay out of other peoples business.

  22. Those federal fuckers are lucky a hard core patriot wasn’t there. Everyone of them would of been shot. The line has been drawn.

  23. Last Wednesday I went to my GP for my annual checkup. Before I saw him I had to fill out a new two-page health questionnaire because I’m now on Medicare-subsidized health insurance. Most of the questions concerned my mental health, mental stability, and ability to take care of myself. Very few of the questions concerned my overall physical health. My doctor called it the new Obama healthcare form.

    See: http://www.leefamilypracticenh.com/workfiles/Medicare%20Annual%20Exam%20Questionnaire.pdf

    I now realize that the answers on this form can be used to confiscate any weapons I may own as described in this story. In the future I will refuse to answer any questions of a similar nature from the government and I would coach all firearms-owning seniors to do likewise. BIG BROTHER is without a doubt gathering data and building a database for future firearms confiscation.

  24. The VA is completely out of control and if were not for the doctors and nurses and techs that actually work with and for the patients the VA would collapse. the last 8 years or so have been unbelievable ……for any of you out there that actually voted for this idiot in as president you are the morons . This guy hates America and what is more American than it’s veterans ? The disable veterans are the most venerable because they can’t afford to loose their disability pensions. Is there anything else this guy can do that will get these pansies in office to get rid of this guy? Enough is enough….For the good of the Nation.

  25. Leftie Lunchmeat is most likely licking his wounds in the back bedroom of his mother’s house, from which he is rarely seen to emerge, and looking up words and concepts unfamiliar to him such as liberty, freedom, democracy, the Bill of Rights, and right to self-defense. While sitting there in his pajamas, which he hasn’t changed in three weeks, he vents, fumes, and lashes out at the outside world, a world where he has few skills and he is unable to find meaningful work beyond flipping burgers, stuffing tacos, or campaigning for like-minded morons running for office. He’s a spoiled pimple-popping brat with far-left ideas. He believes in socialism, communism, a one-party state, confiscation of wealth and firearms, and large governing bureaucracies. He wants higher taxes on the wealthy, free stuff from the government, and a rent-free existence from his mother. He hates free speech. Talk radio incenses him. If he attended college, he was taken by the far-left ideals of his Marxist professors. He’s a coward and a lazy bum who wants other homo sapiens to protect him and pay for his existence. His anger is directed both inward and outward through rants on websites that he hates and wondering why such a self-righteous genius such as himself has to masturbate to get sex of any kind. Most of his pathetic time is spent surfing porn sites and looking for places to vent his pent-up anger, because all liberals are full of self-loathing anxieties, guilt, and a pension to lash out at other people they don’t agree with. He sees people who enjoy lowning and shooting firearms as crazies who want kill him. His fear is unreasonable, abnormal, and psychopathic. His liberal gullibility causes him to believe in global warming even though his IQ isn’t high enough to understand such concepts as differential equations, integration intervals, and non-linear, multi-variable computer climate models. Pity him because he is a forever-unhappy pathetic soul and he voted twice for Barack Hussein Obama, his savior and mentor.

  26. God Bless this veteran for his service and to those who stood by his side when an out of control VA felt it was justified to trample his 2nd Amendment Right! These past 7 years under obamas socialist regime have been a living hell for the good hard working and lawabiding citizens of this nation. 2016 and a strong Conservative president will be an answer to this country’s prayers.

  27. So how do you go about taking the guns out of the hands of those that have been determined to be unstable? Make sure your answer incorporates veterans AND civilians. Before the comment arises, I am in favor of the right to bear arms. Everyone says guns do not kill, it’s the person behind the gun and it is a mental problem. But when law enforcement tries to act on this issue, all of a sudden, the right to bear arms comes up.

  28. America is heading for a civil war. If you elect a Muslim terrorist as a President, that’s all but inevitable.

  29. As with all bullies, they test the waters by targeting the most vulnerable — and, if successful, they look for the next most vulnerable — and, using this process they move along until they run into someone who, by whatever means, is not vulnerable — and that is when things have a habit of changing — and the bully finally discovers what the ‘other end’ of the stick feels like — in most cases that reduces his enthusiasm for continuing that career — looks like that scenario may eventually play out between Obama and lawful firearms enthusiasts — but that is a scenario no one really wants to take place — at least no sane person.

  30. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that a presidential executive order is not law? Law is established and abolished by congress alone. That being said, the VA has no authority to confiscate anyone’s firearms. Do we live in a dictatorship where the president has the word of law? No, we live in a democracy where we elect representatives that vote in a congress for our laws and rights. Perhaps it is time an armed fight be taken to the steps of the Capitol and congress be reminded of their job to oust a such tyrants from the white house. If they should refuse, then it should be time to remove them from congress.

  31. Am I the only person that thinks if someone isn’t mentally capable of controlling their own checkbook they probably don’t have the mental stability to safely possess a firearm?

    Or according to the article maybe he’s defrauding the government.
    If that’s the case here’s an idea, Don’t cheat the government and maybe they won’t scrutinize you.
    “a well known process for milking the VA for a little more change in the monthly disability check that involves declaring yourself unable to manage your own finances. That doesn’t mean the vet in question actually has any mental issues at all — it simply means that he claims he can’t balance his checkbook and needs someone to do it”

  32. I know a number of veterans who are no longer mentally capable of managing their finances, but In my opinion, are still able to own, and use, a gun for their own, and their family’s defense

  33. Maybe it’s time to clean house on VA, gotten to big for there britches, they don’t have the authority or the majority vote of the people to disarm anyone. Maybe we should start with the top and work our way through to the bottom and get rid of those that don’t understand the laws or don’t care.

Leave a Reply

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