September 26, 2016 – original Report
September 16, 2019 – Note: Since our original report, ALL of the inserted YouTube videos in this report, on public officials making public statements, have been removed by Google aka “Alphabet,” the parent company of YouTube.
September 26, 2016
Democrat’s Plan to Control Firearms, SCOTUS, Then America
written by Net Advisor™
Excerpt: At this point in President Obama’s final year, we have a pretty good idea based on even recent statements and behavior what his intent for America was.
We have witnessed a huge shift to the Left in the Democratic Party. With Hillary Clinton being their nominee, we have analyzed her past and current statements and political views.
We concluded that the Democratic Party has moved so far to the political left that we see risk to the United Sates as a country, and as a Constitutional Republic. We discuss some of these concerns here and provided over 120 third-party citations in this report.
WASHINGTON DC. In 2013, a bi-partisan Congress blocked President Obama’s progressive gun-control initiatives. At that time, there was enough concern by members of both major political parties that President Obama, Senator Feinstein (D-Cal.) and others were over-reaching their authority to further regulate (and ban) certain firearms from law-abiding U.S. citizens as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
[1] Gun Control Beyond the Law
Nationalized Gun Control hasn’t stopped Progressives (really, Regressives), and other anti-Second Amendment groups from pushing their agenda. I would argue that their goal is to further erode, re-wright, then ban the Second Amendment.
The election of another Anti-Gun presidential candidate, putting just ONE more Anti-gun activist to the Supreme Court would tilt the High Court to Left Ideology for decades or permanently.
What would then follow would be to register firearms, which is already occurring in six Anti-gun states.
The final phase would be to deem certain weapons as unlawful (citing some ‘public safety’ rhetoric). Then they would likely attempt to confiscate weapons or threaten the public with legal charges if people don’t comply. All of this is already occurring in some states.
Is this all lawful? Well it is if no one challenges it.
Anyone who purchased legal firearms, then later having government pass a law to alter the terms of the purchase, possession or face criminal charges would arguably be unlawful (ex post facto) and unconstitutional under Article 1, § 9 and Article 1 § 10. Case law in re: Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) and California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). We will go over more legal arguments later in this report.
[2] Gun Control: Increased Crime & Deaths
Right now, gun bans are pretty much what other countries such as Venezuela has done. The country has sought to disarm its citizens. Since total gun control, the Socialist government is controlling the food supply, resulting in shortages (food riots), and people are even looting to get underwear.
As for how is that gun control thing doing? In 2015, nearly 28,000 people where killed. To get guns in Venezuela gangs just go after and kill police officers.
When You Have Total #GunControl (Gun BAN).
Gangs Kill #Police For Their #Gunshttps://t.co/S7snLeGSah#Venezuela #CNNTownHall #2A #nra #tlot— NetAdvisor.org® (@NetAdvisor) July 14, 2016
Venezuela is the poster child of the end result of Socialism.
The UK also put in place a gun ban, where gun-related crime skyrocketed 65% after the law passed [Report, Point 4].
To curb gun violence, Mexico implemented a total gun and knife ban [Report, Point 10], which resulted in over 70,000 gun deaths since [Report, Point 11]. Now the criminals including the drug cartels don’t have as much to worry about Mexican citizens being able to defend themselves.
This gun control mantra in the U.S. is not much different than the gun control policies the British attempted prior to the American Revolution.
We will touch more on U.S. and International Gun Control history later in this report.
[3] Using the U.N. to Push Domestic Gun Control
During the last seven years, and after failure to gain support to effectively push gun bans in the U.S., President Obama bypassed Congress, and used the United Nations (a foreign body) to try and influence gun control in America.
In 2010, the U.S. and 152 other countries quietly sought to make firearms more restrictive in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
The Obama government, along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the United Nations to strike at both America’s Second Amendment (the ‘right to bear arms’) and the Tenth Amendment (state’s rights).
“…the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.”
In September 1961, political Progressives (Democrats) in the U.S. State Department came up with a plan to try and disarm not only America but the world.
In short, the plan would ban the manufacturing and possession of all firearms except for those under UN control. Counties may be permitted to have some weapons for local police, but the power would shift to a centralized United Nations’ global police force.
#REPORT: "Understanding the TRUE Nature of the New #Democratic Party"https://t.co/cBKrlgRxZI#NoBillNoBreak #tlot pic.twitter.com/TtL0moR56r
— NetAdvisor.org® (@NetAdvisor) June 22, 2016
The Progressive Democrats and the U.N. fails to understand that criminals, terrorists, and even foreign governments such as China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and most others will never disarm themselves. It is completely stupid and strategically suicidal to do so. An unarmed or weak country with resources is a country that will eventually be controlled by another country with strength and arms.
Restricting or banning firearms from law-abiding citizens does not increase that country’s security [Report, Point 11], and [Report, Point 4].
“the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectible antique U.S.-manufactured M1 and Carbine rifles…”
— Forbes, June 7, 2011 (PDF)
So one has to ask the question: If restricting or banning firearms makes us less secure, what is the real motivation for the ban or limitations?
[4] Democrats’ War on America
The result of restricting firearms to lawful citizens, has not slowed or stopped terrorism, murder, or mass shootings. In fact, one could make the argument that these threats have sharply increased since the government’s ‘restricting’ and ‘banning’ of weapons to law-abiding U.S. citizens.
Just in 2015, the U.S. Dept. of State reported 11,774 terror attacks in the world, accounting for 28,328 deaths. Of those deaths however 24% were the terrorists themselves.
The U.S. actually knows who are the sponsors of terrorism, and exactly where the terrorists are hiding. (Full Report, 407pps PDF).
Pay no attention to the real problem, Democrats see American citizens with guns as the bigger ‘threat?’
According to their own statements, it appears that generally speaking, Democrats also believe the biggest threat to America after the Second Amendment, is of course “Climate Change?”
[5] Democrats and the U.N’s Basic Failure to Understand Human Nature
Gun control initiatives tend to be cloaked in the premise that governments are somehow protecting ourselves (from each other).
Clearly, we are seen as if we cannot be trusted or are too stupid to figure out how to protect ourselves, or our families from hostiles, criminals or home invaders. We apparently need a small group of ideological bureaucrats to make sure we are nearly to totally defenseless, and that someone will make us safer?
Some state governments such as New York think they know exactly how many bullets we need to defend from a home invader, and what type of weapon that can or cannot be used against a hostile intruder.
It is human nature to maintain self-preservation. Since the beginning of humankind, people learned how to develop weapons for self-defense and to hunt for food. Others learned to use weapons to control a weaker population, steal resources, and territory. As humankind became more advanced, so did the weapons.
[6] Side Stepping Congress?
President Obama and now former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clearly were bypassing Congress’ legal legislative authority, let alone the United States Constitution pushing an initiative directly with the U.N. for massive regulation of new international gun laws. U.S. federal laws are not determined by the U.N., but rather by bills passed by both Houses of Congress and then signed by the President.
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
— U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section I. Source: Cornell University Law School
The move of governing by a few sounds more like a Communist State, than a Constitutional Republic.
[7] Historical Analysis: Gun Control & Tyranny Go Hand-in-Hand
The reason why (most) Gun Control advocates don’t just say we should ban firearms altogether is because it would ‘freak out’ a nation bringing up the exact same path that King George III of Great Brittan tried in April, 1775 over of the U.S. Colonies. This action was the final spark that started the American Revolution.
Others have tried total weapon bans from the people throughout history including Joseph Stalin (1929), Mao Zedong (1935), Adolph Hitler (1938), Mao Zedong (1938) and other socialist dictators. So, when you hear those advocating more gun control, banning certain types of weapons, or even a total firearms ban, now they are exposed to whom they are most in alignment with in history of those who did the same. Note none of these people were Americans, none fought for America, let along U.S.
Instead of calling for total ban (which some have), Democrats try to take small “plausible” actions one after another, effecting the end game to achieve their goal: A total gun ban.
By the time one realizes it, their rights are gone and they are living in a society diametrically opposite of what our Forefathers had explicitly provided in the United States Constitution.
Until one understands the Democrat’s motives, one won’t understand the true nature of their real objectives.
[8] Double Speak: You Can’t Have it Both Ways, But They’ll Say You Can
What the Democrats will argue is that they (or maybe some) believe (or will have you THINK that they believe) in the Second Amendment, and that they are not trying to take away your guns.
Video: Obama 2008: “I believe in the Second Amendment.” (Paraphrase) ‘I won’t take your guns away…’
Video: Obama 2013: (paraphrase): ‘I believe I can accomplish some Gun Control by Executive Action.’
Obama 2015: I’m not going to ‘take everyone’s guns away.’
Obama 2016: Obama: It’s a ‘conspiracy’ that I want to take away guns.
Keep in mind that President Obama also reportedly said 22 times that he doesn’t have the authority for Executive Amnesty.
Then after 2014 Mid-term elections, Obama bypassed Congress’ authority and acted like the dictator he said he wasn’t.
Obama: “I am not a dictator, I’m the president” (Mar 1, 2013)(CBS News Video)
(Further: See Reports DTD in 2014 Nov 4 to Nov 20). The 5th Circuit Appellate Court Ruling was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in United States v Texas (2016), whereby SCOTUS deferred to the lower 5th Circuit Court ruling. That 5th Circuit ruling said president Obama exceeded his Constitutional authority on immigration.
So what we have here is this ongoing credibility problem. Where the President has said one thing repeatedly, then done or has tried to unilaterally do the exact opposite.
Author George Orwell described this as “Double Think.” Today we call this Double speak when a person appears to maintain two contracting beliefs.
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….
To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.
Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”
— George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949 (Source: Changing Minds.org)
Next we show Hillary Clinton’s attacks on the U.S. Constitution.
[9] Hillary’s Attack on the Constitution
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is known for being “dishonest and untrustworthy,” “extremely careless” (with classified materials) said the Director of the FBI, and other see her as “Liar” and of “Poor Character.”
Hillary on Classified emails: "That's not what I heard #JamesComey say."https://t.co/0vFC5fgkn8
#FoxNewsSunday pic.twitter.com/yfQjjW0Ya3— NetAdvisor.org® (@NetAdvisor) July 31, 2016
This is the best candidate for PRESIDENT the Democrats could come up with?
With such high character issues, can the People of America trust Mrs. Clinton’s ability to defend the Oath of office and the Constitution in its entirety?
In 2016, Hillary Clinton followed the radical Left’s half-century Anti-Second Amendment crusade.
On October 5, 2015 Hillary Clinton indicated she would act unilaterally (just like Obama, and much like a Third-World Dictator), bypass Congress’ and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Constitutional Authority:
If Congress refuses to act to end this epidemic of gun violence, I'll take administrative action to do so. -H
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 5, 2015
Hillary Clinton also decided that the designated ‘independent’ Judicial Branch of government, the U.S. Supreme Court was “wrong” on the Second Amendment.
“The Supreme Court is Wrong On The Second Amendment.”
— Said Hillary Clinton. Source: Washington Free Beacon, Oct. 1, 2015 (HTML PDF) (audio below.)
Clinton also said that the Second Amendment could (meaning should) be regulated – (meaning taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens).
Mrs. Clinton also opposes the 2008 Supreme Court landmark case in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Summary); Full Court Opinion (157pps PDF).
Clinton’s advisor told Bloomberg.com (PDF) that Heller decision was ‘wrongly decided’ and she doesn’t believes that a person can make the conscious decision whether they want to own a firearm in their own home for self-defense reasons.
Recall earlier, that I discussed how Democrats always use words like they are trying to protect us from ourselves; that we as Americans are too stupid to figure out how to take care of our families, defend our ‘mini castles” (homes/ town-homes, condos and apartments, etc). This is exactly what these people really think.
The District of Columbia (aka Washington DC) Heller case, prevented even a special police officer to register a hand gun for the purpose of home defense. Hillary said she is AGAINST this (recall audio above). Remember?
“The Supreme Court is Wrong On The Second Amendment.”
— Said Hillary Clinton. Source: Washington Free Beacon, Oct. 1, 2015 (HTML PDF)
In short, the U.S. Supreme Court Ruled 5-4, that the Dist. of Columbia violated the Second Amendment that individuals have the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court also said that the right to bear arms was not limited to just hand guns.
#History: How The USA Became A Gun Culturehttps://t.co/jcOprI0sw8 #ClarenceThomas #SCOTUS #2A #NRA #Orlando #Pulse pic.twitter.com/EmrCgyKnqu
— NetAdvisor.org® (@NetAdvisor) June 19, 2016
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
— Candidate Barack Obama said in July 2008
Did that sound like a domestic national police force ran by the federal government?
Less than two weeks after Obama signed a series of executive orders for more domestic gun control, Obama had the DHS buy 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO Assault Rifles, which can use high capacity magazines, and have fully-automatic fire designed for, “close quarters.” This is not for the U.S. military either, it’s supposedly for immigration enforcement (ICE) which immigration is not being well enforced. Here is further proof. New York State Senator Gregg Ball questioned (PDF) the hypocrisy.
In 2007, the U.S. government reassigned 1,000 ICE agents from border security to “customs investigations.”
The move seems to fit into the progressive plan of a ‘national police force.’ Strong Constitutional supporter, lawyer, author and syndicated talk-show host Mark Levin, had a few words to say on this:
Another talk show host weighed in on this question in 2009 asking for the purpose of this domestic militarization move. A user poll by WND suggests that (add totals) 87 percent of the people felt the Obama action was to be used against domestic civilians (accessed Apr. 19, 2014).
Fox Business News cited that DHS had solicited for 1.6 billion rounds of ammo over a 10 month period. That’s enough ammo to shoot each person in the U.S. 19.86 times [Math: U.S. Population 317.8 million divided into 1.6 billion rounds of DHS ammo = 19.86 rounded]. The U.S. military had typically used 70 million rounds a year during the Iraq war. Since the ammo isn’t for a war, and not for the military, what is it for?
[10] Liberal Media Host Blasts Obama’s ‘Prolonged Detention’
President Obama proposed that Americans could be held with “prolonged detention” without trail or legal cause. Even MS-NBC’s far-left liberal Rachel Maddow, articulately blasted President Obama’s unconstitutional proposal for even suggesting that we have a “legal regime to make indefinite detention, legal.”
This “prolonged detention” would apply to those who have not committed any crimes, but the government feels you might, or you could, that could happen up to 10 years in the future. Reading the tealeaves into President Obama’s speech, government doesn’t need any evidence, any trial before any court, to arrest or sentence anyone just because?
“…this is a beautiful speech from President Obama today with patriotic moving even poetic language about the rule of law and the Constitution, and one of the most radical proposals for defying the Constitution that we have ever heard made to the American people.”
— Rachel Maddow, MS-NBC Host (Video @ 7:12)
President Obama was inferring GITMO detainees, and ‘captured terrorists’ in general, but who are trying to redefine what a “terrorist” is these days?
In unrelated instances, Vice President Joe Biden likened the Tea Party to “terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit [Report, Point 13]. Government lawyer, Dan Pfeiffer, who is the Senior Advisor to the White House (President Obama) tried to associate the GOP to ‘suicide bombers’ [Report, Point 14]. Former Vice President Al Gore likened Republicans (and other Conservatives) as practicing “political terrorism” [Report with Video, Point 15].
These are not the only examples of powerful members in or tied to the federal government defining American citizens who have committed no acts of terrorism by definition under Title VIII, Section 802 of the 2001 Patriot Act [Point 3]; nor have they threatened any acts of terrorism; yet somehow political “leaders” define them as ‘terrorists’ simply because they have a political disagreement with government?
Last I checked we still have this thing called the, First Amendment. Shall we review it quickly?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
— United States Constitution, First Amendment (Adopted 1791). Source: Cornell Law School
These “leaders” also assume that their position is the correct and absolute one.
[11] Obama Wrote and Signed NDAA into Law
President Obama said in this speech (Video @ 5:10) that prolonged detention “should not be the decision of any one man.” President Obama did exactly what he promised he would not do.
On New Year’s Eve December 31, 2011, President Obama signed Executive Order #13603 – The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). One report called this, “peacetime martial law.” The Huffington Post called this, “Martial Law by Executive Order” (highlight added). Fox News also raised concerns over this unprecedented political power grab.
Even foreign news media raised concerns about having one person (the President) write an order that could allow U.S. citizens to be detained without trial – indefinitely. The executive order would allow the President to direct the U.S. military to act like police officers and arrest U.S. citizens at the direction of the President with or without cause.
“President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens.
…With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.”
— Source: The Guardian.UK, Jan. 2, 2012 (PDF)
United States Code under 18 USC §4001 says, “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” That’s Congress – not the President nor anyone else in the Executive Branch (The 3 Branches of U.S. Gov Graphic).
[12] Obama’s NDAA ‘Indefinite Detention’ of Americans is “Unconstitutional” – U.S. Federal Judge
In May 2012, U.S. Federal Judge Katherine Forrest in the Southern District of New York ruled that indefinite detention of American citizens was unconstitutional. Judge Forrest cited Obama NDAA law as written would have allowed the federal government (specifically the President) to imprison First Amendment activists, and even journalists without trial (Judge’s Legal Opinion and Order, PDF 68pps).
On September 12, 2012, Judge Forrest affirmed her May 2012 ruling and issued a permanent injunction against it (Judge’s Legal Opinion and Order, PDF 112pps). Judge Forest was appointed to the bench on October 17, 2011 by President Barack Obama.
The other aspects of the NDAA power grab were not brought before the court, thus still stand unless a court rules otherwise.
What does all this have to do with the U.N. Arms Treaty, banning or restricting firearms? Because if you can write laws to classify your political opposition as ‘terrorists;’ and if you can try and write laws to arrest anyone ‘indefinitely’ without trial, and if you can make sure there can be no resistance from the People, then my friends you have tyranny.
“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins…”
— John Locke (1630-1704)
His Book: The Second Treatise of Civil Government; Chapter XVIII (1690). Source: Constitution.org
The “Father of the (U.S.) Constitution,” James Madison cautioned about the accumulation of power of one or a limited few 226 years ago:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
— The Federalist No. 47, February 1, 1788, Paragraph 2, 1st sentence – Source: Yale Law School (PDF)
Not to make any conspiracy argument, but if you take a look at the events in total since 2009, we have seen an Executive (Obama) threats and overreaching of power many times (NDAA, ObamaCare, immigration, for example). We have seen a colluding and obstructing (PDF) judiciary (AG Eric Holder) associated in scandals (PDF), held in contempt by Congress (PDF), selectively enforcing laws (PDF), not fully or properly investigating cases such as Benghazi (PDF), and IRS Targeting of political groups (PDF). Then we have a Senator (Harry Reid) controlling what even gets discussed in the U.S. Senate. A tremendous amount of power in the hands of a few? [Further Reading 1, 2, 3].
[13] Former U.S. United Nations Ambassador Questions Obama Administration’s U.N. Gun Control Treaty
In July 2012, under the disguise of “fighting terrorism,” and “international humanitarian law,” President Obama reversed President Bush’s 2006 order blocking an U.N. Arms Treaty that really is about a direct attack the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
“…the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
— Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton [Source: Forbes (PDF)]
The only reason to register firearms is to have a database to be able to confiscate them from law-abiding citizens later. The real threat are not citizens with firearms, but politicians who feel that they cannot run a communist dictatorship unless we have a gun ban (which felons ignore anyway). Let’s look at what one communist leader said ion this issue:
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
— Mao Zedong, Chinese Communist revolutionary and Founding father of the People’s Republic of China said Nov. 6, 1938.
[14] Government by Executive Order?
The President later responds by saying ‘he has a pen and a phone‘ and he will act if Congress does not. Meaning, if you (Congress) don’t pass what I want to pass, I will make up the laws and pass them myself, right?
Now here is the funny part:
The “I’ve got a pen and I have got a phone” impromptu speech says Obama will use that power for ‘kid’s education’. See – didn’t we talk about this earlier – how kids are used as political pawns? The speech starts out very controlling and unilateral, then we hear, ‘oh it’s about kids,’ and we put our guard down. It’s not about kids, it’s about power and we have seen the power grabs, and kids were not beneficiaries.
Then President Obama says he will use his authority to “help business,” and will “bring American’s together” …blah blah bah. Do we see anywhere this is being used here? Last time we checked there was this thing called a Congress who writes the laws and the president signs and enforces the laws. We also have this 238 year old document called the U.S. Constitution that sets forth all the power and limitations of law and government and that Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Former House Speaker John Boehner responded to Obama’s, ‘I have a pen and a phone’ speech, by saying, “I would remind the president he also has a Constitution.”
FMR White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “He (Obama) makes clear he will work with Congress where Congress is willing to work with him.” In other words, if Congress doesn’t do what I want I will make up the laws?
[15] Another Path to Confiscation
In April 2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was requesting $382 Million in taxpayer funds to study the use and implication of firearm tracking devices.
“…I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe,” he said. “By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.”
— FMR U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Source: Washington Free Beacon)
To begin, many firearms do have safety devices, but regardless, these are weapons, and they are not designed to be “safe.” Guns are designed to defend or to attack. So the idea to make guns “safer” would then mean they should not exist, and that is what the gun control advocates really want.
Purpose of Tracking Devices
The purpose of a tracking device is to do one thing. To allow anti-Constitutional leaders to locate and confiscate them at will. In the event of a criminal getting hold of these devices, they will dimply destroy the GPS or other RF device to avid tracking. The criminal will not care that destroying a tracking device is illegal, because they already stole the gun. To make the weapon inoperable won’t make the some 300 million other guns just in the USA inoperable.
In California, someone came up with the idea of having to weapon a special watch in order to use a gun linked to the watch. If you are an attacker, you don’t have to disable the gun, all you have to do is tear or disable the watch. On a larger scale, if everyone or just many people had these devices, a simple EMP could render ever biometric weapon useless. An EMP does not have to be nuclear, it could be the result from being in an ears of active lighting, or even static electricity.
Problems with Bracelet or “something you might wear” Devices
You have to wear or put on the item in order for it to work with the firearm. While you are sleeping, you home is invaded. You reach for you gun and realize you need to have a special shirt on, bracelet, or something else in order for your weapon to defend you household if need be. All of this gives the criminal an advantage and you the victim, a disadvantage.
There are these GPS bracelets for ‘kids” that parents put on the wrist of their child. if the bracelet is removed it sends a signal to the parent’s phone. This sounds like a good idea but not fool-proof yet. All the attacker has to do is remove the bracelet, put it on another kid or dog and you will be chasing the wrong subject. Meanwhile you kid is gone.
Problems with Bio-metric Devices
The problem with bio-metric devices such as fingerprint ID (aside from the costs), is that it doesn’t always work when you want it to. If you own an iPhone 5 or higher with fingerprint ID you already know what I am talking about. If you don’t have a phone with fingerprint ID, here is the skinny on what could go wrong.
It doesn’t always work. Sometimes you have to try 2-3 times, or eventually punch in your back-up code to get the phone to work.
Can you imagine when you have 2 seconds to react to (for example) a hostile home invasion? The perpetrator is running toward you or your family member. You instantly believe you or your family member is in life-threatening danger. You happen to have your firearm accessible and ready, but you have to align up your finger properly with the gun’s biometric reader for it to work properly. You’re dead. The time it takes for you to even think about putting your finger on the biometric reader, the perpetrator (who statistically is probably on serious drugs) is already on top of you or has killed you with his own weapon or brute force.
Mr. Holder has been associated with a number of scandals including being held in Criminal Contempt of Congress (PDF) for refusing to turn over documents in the DOJ’s Fast and Furious (F&F) gun running scheme. The DOJ under holder made 1000+ of straw purchases of firearms (which is illegal in the U.S. – an a felony) and then brought them to Mexico (where guns – and knives are illegal) and sold them to the Mexican drug cartels. The covert purpose of F&F was to shows that we needed more gun control. As it turned out, the case blew up in the DOJ’s face and they got caught in the scandal.
[16] Questions
We are not pushing any conspiracy theories here, just looking at this from a behavioral view, and noting the responses to the behavior. We have powerful individuals in federal government pushing for an agenda which all sides tend to do from time to time.
What you have to do is ask what or whom is driving this behavior; is it legal, and in whose self-interest does it really serve?
We have strong hypocritical anti-gun politicians who want to disarm America, while creating a national police force equal in size and strength of the Army. There is no mention of what this is really for. The Obama Administration buys enough ammo to kill every American nearly 20 times each. Americans respond by arming themselves in historical record numbers.
The Obama Administration responds by taking everyone opportunity to play on people’s emotions, uses children of any tragic event that involved a gun that we need to further disarm Americans.
To push an anti-gun agenda, the President and Secretary of State bypass Congress and seek to get the U.N. to write the law and get the Secretary of State to sign it.
A President writes up a highly controversial executive order when the media is gone, and everyone is out celebrating New Year’s Eve. But when the Progressives (Obama) say they can also include other progressives (Maddow) and put them in jail too, wait a minute on that one buddy, right? A federal judge later strikes at least the indefinite indentation out.
We have laws prohibiting government from over reaching their authority. We have a federal court order reminding that government does not have unlimited and unrestrained authority.
Even a bi-partisan Congress disagrees with the President’s anti-gun legislation.
If you liked this article, please “like us” on Facebook or share on Twitter or through your favorite social network. We are a non-profit education media org.
Read More of our articles on relating to U.S. Gun Policies, laws, and history here.
original content copyright © 2016 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
