The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Gun Propaganda and the Health Care Reform Illusion

August 20, 2009

The American Chronicle - The power elite are also in the business of creating illusions. They use their politicians and the mass media to try to create a perception of reality they would like us to see. The illusions they create are elaborate, complicated, well designed, well executed and likely expensive, but they are illusions nonetheless...

One of the ways to create a good illusion is to get the audience to look over there while something is happening over here. Another is to keep things hidden and produce them when you want them seen. Still another way is to make the audience believe something isn't what it appears to be, or that something is what it doesn't appear to be. Or any combination of these things can help produce a good illusion. Of course, if the audience looks where the action is and detects the slight of hand, or if they see the hidden element before it is produced, or if they are not convinced that something is or is not something else, then the illusion is ruined.

There was a man in New Hampshire recently who came to a protest against the proposed health care legislation open carrying a gun. His name was Mr. William Kostric. He was also carrying a sign that read "It is time to water the tree of liberty." This protest was near where Mr. Barack Obama was having a town hall meeting. What's wrong with that? We have a God given right of self defense, don't we? The second amendment of our nation's constitution still applies, right? Holding a sign at a protest is legal, so no big deal, right? Open carrying in New Hampshire is legal, so no big deal, right? Wrong. The media jumped all over it. They made it a big deal.

Many of the news organizations immediately freaked out at the sight of a citizen open carrying a gun to such an event. When I first heard the news I got the impression that someone had brought a gun into the venue where Mr. Obama was speaking and was waving it around in a threatening manner, at least that's what it seemed judging by how big of a deal they were making of it. As the reports came in I began to wonder what kind of nut would do such a thing. Then I began to get the details of the situation, that it was in New Hampshire, that it was on private property, that the man wasn't in the venue with Mr. Obama, and I began to realize that, as usual, the media was making a bigger deal out of a situation than they should. Finally, I got to watch the interview Mr. Kostric did with Chris Matthews on Hardball.

Mr. William Kostric, a man I met at this year's Liberty Forum who struck me as about as average a guy as there is, held up very well under the heavy handed questioning of Chris Matthews. I don't know that anyone else could have done a better job and I doubt I would have held up so well. He remained very calm and thoughtful even as Chris Matthews did his best to inject anger and emotion into the debate. As my brother observed about Mr. Kostric's appearance on the show, he made Chris Matthews look reactionary and bizarre. In his attempt to get Mr. Kostric to lose control, Chris Matthews was unable to maintain control of his own emotions.



Judging from his questions, it seems to me Chris Matthews was trying to maintain the illusions that had already been set up. The illusion is that people who carry guns are crazy, emotionally unstable, fringe, violent or anything other than mainstream. There's also an illusion as to the dangers of guns. While I wouldn't say that Mr. Kostric shattered those illusions with his interview, I would suggest that perhaps he opened the eyes of some more thoughtful people who may have seen him. Perhaps some of the viewers may have caught a glimpse of something hidden under the cloth of the mainstream media propaganda and perhaps for them the illusion is not quite as spellbinding anymore. Perhaps now some people may understand that the talking heads on television can and should ask more pertinent questions of newsworthy people in these situations rather than trying to demonize them.

It seems to me that perhaps the wrong questions are being asked as these situations arise. As Mr. Kostric wisely pointed out on the Chris Matthews' television program, the question shouldn't be why would he wear a gun to the rally, the question should be why weren't more people wearing their guns to the rally. Indeed, if people don't exercise their rights then those rights will likely atrophy and perhaps die...

The media wishes to maintain the illusion that it is covering news in a fair and objective manner when in fact it is trying to manipulate opinions the establishment wants you to hold. They have to walk a fine line to keep the trust of their audiences, maintain or improve ratings, and keep the power elite that finance them happy and their agenda hidden. The Internet and sites like Youtube have more or less corralled mainstream media's attempt to completely control the information we receive...

There is another illusion in this country that many, many people believe. Quite a percentage of the inhabitants of this land called America believe there is actually a difference between a Republican politician and a Democrat politician. They still think that there are partisan battles taking place. It is therefore easy for some to believe that Republicans (conservatives) are against free health care for those who can't afford it and Democrats (liberals) are for providing free health care for everyone and making the rich pay for it. This situation certainly does help keep that illusion alive.

Perhaps this health care debate is academic. Perhaps most politicians holding federal office couldn't care less about whether or not this particular bit of health care legislation is passed. After all, many of the common folk that are protesting this proposed legislation likely identify with neither party, while some identify with Republicans and others with Democrats...

I believe that perhaps most people have come to realize that such a program would be too costly, would likely bankrupt the nation (as if it isn't already), and that it puts too much control of our personal health care into the hands of bureaucrats. Many people are angry at insurance companies and don't trust them, myself included, and yet they trust the government even less. In fact, I would venture a guess that most people want government completely out of their lives, and so they certainly don't want them nosing around in their personal health care business.

I really don't believe that any of this theater is about health care. It seems to me that it's about control. It's about power. It's about making everyone dependent upon government and so ensnaring them in a trap that makes the common class slavish to the power elite political class. As long as the illusions that politicians care are maintained, than they can manipulate the masses, divert attention away from their previous follies and create conflict amongst different groups that they define.

People are beginning to see through their illusions, however. They are catching glimpses of the hidden. The old tricks that were at one time so effective at mesmerizing aren't working as well as they once did. People are beginning to walk away from the shell game the politicians and the power elite are playing. They are spotting the slight of hand. The masses want their independence, their power, and their money back. No illusion, no matter how well thought out, elaborate or expensive, will change that.

Metacon Gun Club: Victory in Clean Water Act Appeal

August 7, 2009

Pacific Legal Foundation - Last week in Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society v. Metacon Gun Club, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a commonsense decision that the firing of lead bullets over dry land does not violate the Clean Water Act prohibition on the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States.

In the case, local activists claimed that a shooting range was a wetland and that spent ammunition was polluting the site and surrounding areas. But the appeals court agreed with Pacific Legal Foundation, whose attorneys represented the gun club, that the site did not meet the federal definition of wetlands and the plaintiffs had produced no real evidence of any pollution, on- or off-site.

The federal government participated as amicus in the case to advance its interpretation of the Supreme Court's recent Clean Water Act jurisdictional decision, Rapanos v. United States. Because the Second Circuit determined that no discharges had occurred on the gun club's property, the appeals court avoided the Rapanos jurisdictional issues.

The OAS Treaty—Blueprint for Dismantling the Second Amendment

August 2009

Independence Institute - The Obama administration’s offensive against the Second Amendment has begun.

As was predicted, the strategy uses international law to create a foundation for repressive and extreme gun control. The mechanism is an international treaty, the “Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials.”

If the plan succeeds, police sales of confiscated firearms would be prohibited, and anyone who reloads ammunition at home would need a federal license. In addition, the treaty would create an international law requirement that almost every American firearm owner be licensed as if he were a manufacturer.

Founded in 1948, the Organization of American States (OAS) includes all of the independent nations of the Western Hemisphere. (Cuba’s participation has been suspended since 1962.) In 1997, President Clinton signed a gun control treaty, which had been negotiated by OAS. Subsequently, neither he nor President George W. Bush sent the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification.

The treaty is commonly known as “CIFTA,” for its Spanish acronym, Convención Interamericana Contra La Fabricación Y El Tráfico Ilícitos De Armas De Fuego, Municiones, Explosivos Y Otros Materiales Relacionados. The document is called a “convention” rather than a “treaty” because “convention” is a term of art for a multilateral treaty created by a multinational organization.

At the OAS meeting in April 2009, President Obama said that he would send CIFTA to the U.S. Senate and urge ratification. The White House claimed that the convention was merely an expression of international goodwill, and that it had been negotiated with the participation of the National Rifle Association.

Both statements were false.

In the United States, it is common for police and sheriffs’ departments to sell confiscated firearms to federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs). The FFLs then resell the guns to lawful consumers. Of course, when any FFL sells a gun to a customer, the sale must be approved by the National Instant Check System, or its state equivalent.

Police and sheriff sales of confiscated guns would be outlawed by CIFTA which mandates: “State Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.”

Another target of CIFTA is reloading. The millions of Americans who reload include competitive target shooters, hunters, trainers who want to craft milder ammunition for beginners and many other hobbyists who enjoy making things themselves and saving money. Due to the present shortage of ammunition, more and more people are taking up reloading—so many that reloading equipment manufacturers are having difficulty keeping their products in stock.

Reloading is entirely lawful in every state, and no state requires a specific permit for those reloading ammunition. CIFTA, however, declares that “illicit manufacturing” is the “manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials” that takes place without “a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place.”

Thus, either the federal government or all 50 state governments would have to enact legislation to impose reloading licenses, and to define unlicensed reloading as crime. According to Article IV of CIFTA: “State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) charges $10 per year for a license to manufacture most ammunition. Also under existing law, the premises of firearms and ammunition manufacturers may be inspected without notice once per year by the BATFE, and an unlimited number of times in cases involving a criminal investigation. Thus, anyone who reloads ammunition would be taxed and subject to home inspection by the federal government.

Reloaders are not the only ones who would be required to have a manufacturing license. So would every company or individual that makes any part of a firearm or an accessory. In fact, so would almost every firearm owner in the nation.

CIFTA Article I requires licensing for the manufacture of “other related materials.” These are defined as “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm...”

CIFTA does not specifically require gun registration. But once you impose manufacturing licenses, registration comes along for the ride. Existing federal regulations for manufacturers of firearms and ammunition require that manufacturers keep records of all products they produce, and these records must be available for government inspection.

Thus, those who reload ammunition would have to keep records of every round they made, and gun owners would have to keep a record of everything they “assembled” (e.g., putting a scope on a rifle). These records would then be open to BATFE inspection...

Further, CIFTA could be used to impose national licensing, registration and taxation of gun owners without members of Congress having to cast a vote that explicitly creates such laws. Indeed, because treaties need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, yet need no approval from the House of Representatives, the House could be cut out of the law-making process altogether...