US sheriffs rebellion against Obama's gun control

by Doc Vega | February 6, 2013 at 02:03 pm

367 views | 4 Recommendations | 0 comments

As the Obama administration attempts to step up efforts against US citizens having the right to bear arms, a right guaranteed in the US Constitution under the Second Amendment, a rebellion against federal tyranny is underway. It seems that America’s sheriffs departments who are acknowledging the oaths they took to uphold the US Constitution are resisting the imposition of the new gun control laws. Probably the oldest branch of law enforcement in the United States has taken upon itself to step up to the plate in the performance of their duty and guarantee the rights of the civilians in their counties to protect themselves from violence with the very arms they have purchased.

Is a confrontation between sheriffs and federal authorities inevitable?

Has it come down to this now? Will county law enforcement agents be forced to take on the federal government if and when the confiscation of firearms begins? So far, out of 1000 US sheriffs departments 90 have officially announced that they will refuse to participate in the seizure of citizen’s weapons, and will even intervene if federal authorities proceed regardless of their warnings. Hopefully, other sheriffs departments will be urged by the actions of these sheriffs to act as the law intended for them to act, in the interests of protecting their constituents. Sheriffs departments from Oregon to Florida have vowed not to be swayed by the Obama White House’s assault on Second Amendment rights.

Public relations campaign by sheriffs unleashed

Many of these sheriffs are now speaking out publicly on how they propose to uphold the US Constitution in lieu of the administration’s attacks on the rights of US citizens. One Sheriff Mack, who has written several books on the Constitutional enforcement of law has made several seemingly audacious statements during his speaking engagements. Sheriff Mack has spoken about the need for counties to resist federal agents who do not have proper authorization to act in their counties. He has spoken of common instances with the IRS who seeks to illegally seize people’s property when they have not even followed due process of law. In such cases Sheriff Mack has stopped IRS agents and escorted them from his county. These incidents are more common than most people suspect as the IRS among other agencies many times does not file proper paper work with the secretary of state as required in order to legalize a levy or lien against people’s assets.

Don't mess with Texas!

In Texas, Governor Perry has announced that the state of Texas will also resist the imposition of any federal authority in violation of the people’s Constitutional rights involving federal agencies who seek to act within state boundaries and confiscate firearms. Texas is now considering a law that would allow for the imprisonment of any federal agent on Texas land who attempts to enforce federal seizure of state citizen’s firearms along with a substantial fine.

Government refusal to acknowledge local authority

According to the US Constitution, the sheriff is the highest authority within the jurisdiction of a county. Even federal intervention does not exceed the power of an acting sheriff. Republican State Representative Steve Toth will draft the Fire Arms Protection Act which will authorize the imprisonment of federal agents attempting to enforce gun control in Texas. State Attorney General Greg Abbot has vowed to prevent federal interference with the Second Amendment rights of Texans. Proposed penalties will be severe with $50,000.00 fine and a 5 year prison sentence.

Sheriff Arpaio to be counted on

Among sheriffs who will not uphold federal gun control in their states will be Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. Arpaio has a lot of experience with the negative influence that federal government has imposed upon the state of Arizona as he has fought against the refusal of the feds to uphold illegal immigration, gun walking by the ATF across the border to Mexican drug cartel gangs, and has proven in that President Obama’s posted birth certificate is an electronically altered fraud.

Special Ops personnel define true weapon's terms

If all this activism by angry sheriffs departments across the United States isn’t enough, the Green Beret have now entered the fray. 1100 Green Beret soldiers, active and retired, have posted an open letter in the Professional Soldiers Blog to the Obama White House with the definition of a true assault rifle or weapon. An AR-15 does not meet the criteria for such a weapon. Former special operations warriors consider that rifle which has been so vilified by the Obama administration to be merely a single shot, semi automatic rifle, not a bonafied assault weapon. Capable of 40 to 50 rounds a minute, the fully automatic power of special forces rifles such as the M4A1 capable in the hands of a skilled professional of firing 950 rounds per minute, makes the AR-15 no match for the definition of an assault rifle.

Gun bans meaningless to criminals and madmen

Even the limitation of high volume magazines for these rifles is superfluous as a gunman can merely take along more magazines to continue shooting. Reducing the size of magazines does not really address the problem. Even the term of “Assault Rifle” did not really exist in the vernacular of the armed forces community as it was a political term created by gun control advocates in 1989.

The concept of limiting the access of weapons to the general public and even confiscating those already in their possession does nothing to ensure that gun violence will be omitted from society. After guns were completely banned in Great Britain in 1988 under the Fire Arms Act making the UK the most strictly regulated society over firearms in the world, it only got worse. By 2003 gun related crimes were up 35% compared to the previous year with 9,974 recorded gun related crimes. Homicides committed with guns were up 32% that same 12 month period. The fact about the failure of gun control was a staggering truth to behold as violent crimes committed with guns increased 65% over all corresponding to the period just before the Fire Arms Act in was ratified in 1988.

What do these grim statistics tell us in the wake of draconian laws that attempt to address complex social problems? Taking away the arms of honest citizens will surrender that capability only to criminals who will have even more of an edge over the public and law enforcement when only they possess guns. Illegal, black market weapons will always be available to the underworld regardless of what law abiding citizens do. Police are rarely there in time to respond to gun violence and shooting sprees. The only thing police seem capable of is zipping up the body bags, expressing their condolences, and advising citizens that they are better off without their own weapons in the aftermath another bloody scene of a shooting. One might recall films of the Columbine High School shooting in which Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris murdered 15 students on campus with their rifles as masses of local law enforcement officers arrived on the scene and took cover outside the school, unwilling to enter the premises even though an armed security guard and motor cycle officer had already separately engaged Eric Harris in a brief gun battle forcing the assailant to retreat back into the school building.

In the final analysis, the whole issue of government forced gun bans fail to remedy the problem of public weapons violence as it is people who do the killing. There have been many murdered in stabbings. Does that mean we ban steak knives? There have been masses of people killed in the wreckage of commercial airline tragedies. Should we ban jet aircraft? Millions have died in auto accidents. Should we ban cars to the general public? Hundreds of thousands of people die from misdiagnosis, malpractice, and side effects from drug treatment under medical care. These losses far exceed our wartime casualties. Should we ban the practice of medicine in the United States? The forced disarmament of society is just as absurd an argument.

The possession of and privilege to use a firearm is a basic right provided by the US Constitution to every man and woman in America. Not only were guns intended for sport, hunting for food, and self protection. Guns in the form of rifles, pistols, shotguns, with or without high capacity magazines, were also intended for another sacrosanct purpose. That purpose was for protecting ourselves from foreign invaders as well. That would include the Mexican drug cartel, foreign soldiers of fortune hired by the government if American forces refused to fire on US civilians, and even Americans using their own weapons to prevent having them being confiscated by a tyrannical federal government deploying agents ordered to enforce that unconstitutional miscarriage of justice.

It's not about protecting public

Gun control is not about protecting our schools, our children, or the general public in private or social occasions. Gun control is a tool of submission imposed by the federal government to further enslave the population and rob that people of their ability to fight back against the tyranny and overreach of a fascist federal agenda.

Guns meant for citizens as protection from the government

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States and a signer of the US Constitution foresaw the need of the people to possess their own right not only to self protection, but the right to arm themselves against a rogue, lawless, federal government! We the People is clearly stated in the US Constitution. It does not say, we the FBI, we the CIA, we the IRS, we the Federal Reserve, or we the Department of Justice. The US Constitution clearly states We the People own the government, and the capricious politicians on Capitol Hill have conveniently forgotten that essential truth!