Former Secret Service Agent Exposes Government Agenda To Disarm Americans On Fox News




Sheriff David Clarke Jr. Refuses To Disarm American Citizens, Warns Of Possible “Second American Revolution”



A Growing Revolution: 50 Firearms Companies Join Forces To Oppose New Gun Control Laws


At a recent trade show in Nampa, Stacey Nagy of Idaho-based Primary Weapons Systems exhibited one of the company’s firearms.


Firearms companies ranging from gun shops to machinists are joining forces to oppose new gun control laws. Some are threatening to move away from states that crack down on guns, others are refusing to sell gear to police that can’t be sold to citizens.

By Patrik Jonsson | Christian Science Monitor


A growing number of firearm firms in the US are vowing to reverse-boycott local and state governments that enact any new infringements on the Second Amendment.

Vowing to close what they’re calling “the police loophole,” at least 50 US companies, ranging from gun machinists to gun shops, are now saying publicly they’ll refuse to sell weapons and gear to police in places where governments have banned the use of the same gear by civilians.

Quality Arms, located in Rigby, Idaho, writes on its website that it “will not supply any firearm or product manufactured by us or any other company, nor will we warranty, repair, alter or modify a firearm owned by any state, county or municipality that infringes on the right of its citizens to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.”

How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.

The move comes as Congress and some state houses are considering new gun controls in the wake of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The most direct target of the “police loophole” movement seems to be New York State, which put into law a raft of new gun control regulations, including limiting the size of magazines, last month.

“Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York [so] we have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York,” York Arms of Buxton, Maine, writes on its website.

So far, none of the major gun manufacturers have joined the list, and it’s an open question whether the smaller companies are bluffing or would even have occasion to sell directly to governments in New York State, for example.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

“Unless S&W, Springfield Armory, Ruger, Remington, etc. get on board, these boycotts are practically useless,” writes an anonymous poster on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.

Meanwhile, the push for more gun control continues across the country, led by President Obama.

On Friday, Obama’s political advocacy group, Organizing for Action, held over 100 events across the country, including letter-writing parties, rallies with police chiefs and mayors, and candlelight vigils, to push for Obama’s federal gun control plan, which includes beefing up background checks and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Nevertheless, at least one of the companies on the “police loophole” list, Predator Intelligence of Phoenix, Ariz., says its pushback against new gun control laws is having an impact.

“We have police from LA and NYC that contact us about purchasing Magazines if they provide proof,” the company wrote recently on Facebook. “Why should we consider sending them to states that want to enforce laws that are unconstitutional?”

Indeed, the lack of support from police may have led the Minnesota State Senate this week to drop proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“The assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine ban proposals are highly divisive,” Sen. Ron Latz, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, noting that those proposals had not received strong support from police.

While Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, for example, has said it’s time for new limits on some guns and ammunition, threats by a major Colorado arms manufacturer, Magpul, to take hundreds of jobs out of state if the governor signs such laws appears to have given Mr. Hickenlooper some pause.

After the House passed four specific gun control bills recently, including limiting the kind of magazines that Magpul builds, Hickenlooper has not yet signaled whether he’ll sign the measures into law. (The Colorado Senate has yet to vote on the package.)



Gov. Dannel P. Malloy Dangerous Gun Ban Proposal Targets 2,900 Jobs In Connecticut


The trade association for the firearms industry worries that if some of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s gun proposals gain traction with the legislature they will have a detrimental effect on an industry that supports 2,900 direct jobs in the state.

Gun manufacturers contributed more than $1.7 billion to economic activity in Connecticut in 2012, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Jake McGuigan, a director of government relations and state affairs for the NSSF, said Thursday that his organization is concerned about some of Malloy’s proposals, especially the ban on any semi-automatic weapon with one or more military-style features.

“I am proposing that we change the definition of assault weapon to any semi-automatic that has at least one military characteristic, and ban the sale of these weapons in our state,” Malloy said Thursday when he unveiled his legislative proposals. Currently a weapon must have two characteristics, such as a pistol grip or a folding stock, to be considered an assault weapon.

Under Malloy’s redefined assault weapons ban, the AR-15 would be prohibited from further sale. The AR-15 was the popular semi-automatic rifle used by the gunman in the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

Malloy’s proposal would give owners of these type of weapons until October to register their semi-automatic rifles with state police. If gun owners wanted to sell their gun to a federally licensed firearm dealer they could, but those guns could only then be sold outside of Connecticut.

McGuigan said his organization is acting under the assumption that gun manufacturers in the state wouldn’t even be able to manufacture these types of weapons here, and even if they were the owners and employees of the company wouldn’t be able to own any of the guns they manufacture.

“Essentially we would lose the entire retail market in the state of Connecticut,” McGuigan said.

However, Michael Lawlor, the governor’s top criminal justice adviser, said manufacturers would still be able to make them in the state, they just wouldn’t be able to sell them in the state. It would not prohibit them from manufacturing them, which they do now under the current assault weapons ban, he said.

Even if that’s the case, McGuigan said Colt Firearms already has a small research and development facility in Florida and could easily begin transitioning the rest of its business out of West Hartford.

He said New Britain is home to eight to 10 companies with licenses from the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agency and they lease between 700,000 and 1 million square feet of property. If any of them left it would have an impact on the local economy, McGuigan said.

The only other state with a law similar to what Malloy is proposing is New York, McGuigan said.

After New York passed the NY SAFE ACT, which included a ban on semi-automatic rifles or shotguns with “military-style” features, gun manufacturers in that state like Remington started receiving offers from other states to move their operations.

Within two weeks of the New York legislation passing, South Carolina Congressman Jeff Duncan wrote to Remington’s CEO, saying: “In South Carolina, we believe in the right to keep and bear arms. We need to encourage other businesses who share those beliefs to relocate to the Palmetto State.”


Read More:


Lawmakers Now Working On Forcing American Gun Owners To Pay For New Insurance



As if the American people were not having a hard enough time paying their monthly bills already, leave it to the lawmakers to come up with a cozy new solution for their insurance industry contributors.

Before the huge ramifications of forced medical insurance via Obamacare has ripped a gaping hole in your wallet, we have now a new solution to the gun control debate that is sure to further bankrupt the American family. Leave it to politicians to find the solution to the gun control debate. Could this be their plan B for gun control? Pay no more mind to their silly arguments of trying to convince the masses of law abiding citizens that somehow they will be safer if only criminals and the government have all the guns. If Americans are not all stupid enough to willingly give up their guns, let’s just force them to buy yet another type of insurance.

As Ronald Reagan said many years ago in a speech reminiscing about the days of having true freedom of travel, “The rate of car accidents did not go down after the requirement to have a driver’s license was instituted.” Likewise, a young and inexperienced driver being forced to pay over $200 per month for car insurance does not make the passengers in a car beside them any safer. But on the same nonsensical principle, the gun grabbers may have decided that if we are going to have to pry their guns out of their cold, dead hands then why not just make a boatload more money by making them pay for their right to keep and bear arms. The sound of money changing hands from insurance companies to politicians may soon be heard across our land.

In a recent segment of “The David Pakman Show” it is reported that 4 states are already proposing bills to require gun owners to buy gun liability insurance. As history has shown, what starts in one state often sweeps across the nation so if you think this is an outrageous idea, you may want to call your state representative very soon and let them know this would not be a good idea if they ever want to get re-elected.

This latest scheme may have been in the works for a very long time. Did you know that the NRA jumped into the insurance business back in January 2000? If you have not joined thousands of gun owners jumping off the NRA ship and joining GOA instead, you may find a website rather interesting now that this new type of insurance is being proposed. The website is titled, “The NRA Endorsed Property & Casualty Insurance Program: No one Understands Firearms Insurance Better.” We know that they had been referring to liability insurance for gun-related businesses but it now seems somewhat miraculous that they already had positioned themselves for this latest fleecing of America via mandatory insurance. Just a lucky coincidence or what?

We can only hope that We The People will get just as enraged at the prospect of gun owner’s insurance as we are about the dangers of gun confiscation. Mandatory insurance will prove to be a pathway to the same end. Are the American people going to fall for this latest political/insurance scheme and be fooled into accepting it as a compromise to gun control as they rip even more into our pocketbooks? This is no compromise at all! If you can’t afford the insurance, it will become the new “legal” excuse to disarm you. If you can’t prove you have insurance on your car, it gets towed away and your “right” to freely travel gets suspended. History tends to repeat itself using the same tactics for different reasons. Don’t fall for it America!


Article By: Lori Stacey

Original Article:

Joe Biden Gets Caught On Camera Admitting Gun Control Will Not Stop Mass Shootings or Save Lives


Department Of Homeland Security Buys 7000 Full-Auto Assault Rifles, Names Them ‘Personal Defense Weapons’


(NaturalNews) In yet another huge blow to the rhetoric and narrative of the Obama administration and its desire to disarm the American public, a DHS bid has been uncovered (see documents below) showing that the Department of Homeland Security recently put out an offer to purchase 7,000 full-auto “assault weapons” to be used domestically, inside the USA.

Keep in mind that President Obama is on the record saying, “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

But it seems he really means they don’t belong on the streets of our cities unless they are in the hands of homeland security enforcers, in which case they can be FULL-AUTO assault weapons.

The DHS bid for 7,000 full-auto assault weapons is found by clicking here. The original credit for discovering this goes, to my best knowledge, to Awr Hawkins at

In the hands of the government, they’re called “Personal Defense Weapons”
The juiciest part of this bid is the use of the phrase “Personal Defense Weapons” to describe the full-auto AR-15s being purchased by DHS.

Apparently, when YOU hold an AR-15, it’s an “assault rifle.” But magically, if you hand that same rifle to an armed government homeland security enforcer, it instantly transforms itself into a “personal defense weapon.”

The request for bid actually says:

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and / or when maximum concealment is required.

So there it is, right in black and white: DHS enforcers need full-auto AR-15s which are “suitable for personal defense in close quarters” and for “maximum concealment.”

But if you or I make the same claim, suddenly we are branded lunatics by the fringe left and all the gun grabbers across America who apparently have no clue that their own government is arming up like never before.

Senator Feinstein, the gun-grabbing Senator from California, says she wants to take all the guns from all Americans. “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” she says on the record. But while Mr. and Mrs. America are turning in their guns, ‘roid-head DHS goons are arming to the teeth with full-auto assault rifles.

This is all on top of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition the U.S. government has already stockpiled, as was discovered last year. What kind of government wants to domestically stockpile ammo and full-auto weapons, putting them in the hands of domestic agents who have nothing whatsoever to do with overseas wars? Well, the kind of government that plans to NEED 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and full-auto assault weapons, of course.

Learn more: