TERRORIST KILLER us military GAU 19B 50 Cal Gatling Gun
This piece has been around a while – but it is soooooo cool – worth the replay!!
Another great weapon for the US military and us army. Could prove useful in combating terrorists in Iraq and Syria. The GECAL 50, officially designated by the United States military as the GAU-19/A, is an electrically driven Gatling gun that fires the .50 BMG (12.7×99mm) cartridge.
The GAU-19/A is designed for a linkless feed, but can be fed from a standard M9 linked belt if a delinker feeder is used. The rate of fire is selectable to be either 1,000 or 2,000 rounds per minute. The Humvee armament kit version fires at 1,300 rounds per minute. The average recoil force when firing is 500 pounds-force (2.2 kN). In January 2012, General Dynamics announced they would be delivering a new version designated the GAU-19/B. It provides the same firepower in a lighter platform, weighing 106 lbs.
The GECAL 50 was first manufactured by General Electric, then by Lockheed Martin, and now by General Dynamics. Design work began in 1982. Early prototypes had six barrels, but a three-barreled configuration is now standard. The GAU-19/A was originally designed as a larger, more potent version of the M134 Minigun. Due to the loss of nine helicopters in Grenada GE started building prototypes of the weapon in both a three-barreled and a six-barreled configuration. The six-barreled version was designed to fire 4,000 rpm, and could be adapted to fire up to 8,000 rpm. The GAU-19 takes 0.4 seconds to reach maximum firing rate. Soon it was recommended as a potential armament for the V-22 Osprey. The magazine would be located underneath the cabin floor and could be reloaded in-flight. However, plans to mount the gun were later dropped. In 2005, the GAU-19/A was approved to be mounted on the OH-58D Kiowa helicopter. It also could have been used on the Army’s now cancelled ARH-70. In January 2012, the U.S. Army ordered 24 GAU-19/B versions for use on helicopters. All were delivered by the next month.
In 1999, the United States sent 28 GAU-19s to Colombia. Oman is known to use the GAU-19/A mounted on their HMMWVs. The navy of Mexico uses MDH MD-902 series helicopters with the GAU-19/A system mounted for anti-narcotics operations.
Colombia: Used by Drug Enforcement troops, and the Colombian national police
Japan: Used by Japan Coast Guard, on PC Kagayuki class
Mexico: Used by the Mexican Air Force and the Mexican Navy in Humvees, UH-60 Black Hawks and the MD Explorer
Oman: Used on Army HMMWV.
Gatling Gun History
The Gatling gun is one of the best-known early rapid-fire weapons and a forerunner of the modern machine gun. Invented by Richard Gatling, it is known for its use by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s, which was the first time it was employed in combat. Later it was used in the Boshin War, the Anglo-Zulu War and still later in the assault on San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American War.
The Gatling gun’s operation centered on a cyclic multi-barrel design which facilitated cooling and synchronized the firing/reloading sequence. Each barrel fired a single shot when it reached a certain point in the cycle, after which it ejected the spent cartridge, loaded a new round, and in the process, allowed the barrel to cool somewhat. This configuration allowed higher rates of fire to be achieved without the barrel overheating.
Patent drawing for R.J. Gatling’s Battery Gun, 9 May 1865.
The Gatling gun was designed by the American inventor Dr. Richard J. Gatling in 1861 and patented on November 4, 1862. Gatling wrote that he created it to reduce the size of armies and so reduce the number of deaths by combat and disease, and to show how futile war is.
Although the first Gatling gun was capable of firing continuously, it required a person to crank it; therefore it was not a true automatic weapon. The Maxim gun, invented in 1884, was the first true fully automatic weapon, making use of the fired projectile’s recoil force to reload the weapon. Nonetheless, the Gatling gun represented a huge leap in firearm technology.
Prior to the Gatling gun, the only weapons available to militaries capable of firing many projectiles in a short space of time were mass-firing volley weapons like the French Reffye mitrailleuse in 1870–1871, or field cannons firing canister, much like a very large shotgun. The latter were widely used during and after the Napoleonic Wars. Although the maximum rate of fire was increased by firing multiple projectiles simultaneously, these weapons still needed to be reloaded after each discharge, which for multi-barrel systems like the mitrailleuse was cumbersome and time-consuming. This negated much of the advantage of their high rate of fire per discharge, making them much less powerful on the battlefield. In comparison, the Gatling gun offered a rapid and continuous rate of fire without having to manually reload by opening the breech.
Should you ever find yourself surrounded by Zombies or other unworldly forces, the new Magnum Research Mark XIX Apocalyptic Desert Eagle certainly makes a good defense. The new Cerakote distressed matte white finish should intimidate even the wildest of beasts and evil undead.
For shooting enthusiasts who do not really worry about the apocalypse, this new Mark XIX Desert Eagle distressed white finish earns kudos for the “cool factor”. The new Cerakote finish consists of a multi-step process which involves a high-temperature ceramic coating that holds up under normal use. It has been tested for durability and has proven to be very tough.
The Apocalyptic Desert Eagle comes in two calibers: .50 AE and .44 Mag. The .50 AE is a gas-operated, semi-automatic pistol with a 7-round capacity. The .44 Mag. has an 8-round capacity. Both guns measure 10.75 inches in length with 6-inch barrels. Slide width is 1.25-inches, height is 6.25 inches and the weight with an empty magazine is approximately 4 pounds, 5.8 ounces in .50 AE, and 4 pounds, 6.6 ounces in the .44 Mag. It has a trigger reach of 2.75 inches and a sight radius of 8.5 inches with the 6-inch barrel.
The construction of the Desert Eagle utilizes the latest CNC machine technology providing exacting specifications with tight tolerances creating a work of art in a precision firearm. This Desert Eagle features a G10 grip. The G10 material is a high-pressure thermoset plastic laminate consisting of multiple layers of woven fiberglass mesh cloth impregnated with an epoxy resin binder. It is anatomically formed and provides an ideal hand seating angle for two-handed shooting allowing for comfortable, rapid and accurate firing. The Weaver style accessory rail easily allows for aftermarket optics and scope rings.
The MSRP on the new Apocalyptic white matte distressed pattern for the Mark XIX Desert Eagle is $1895 for the DE44WMD and $1922 for the DE50WMD.
The M-14 is the shortest-lived “official” standard service rifle in the history of the United States. It survives in military service as the M21 sniper rifle in some reserve units, in the U.S. Navy and in special operations units. The rifle is still the weapon of choice in the U.S. military when a 7.62mm NATO combat rifle is required and thousands of them remain in storage. Despite the fact that the M-14 was officially replaced throughout the US Army by the M-16 in the early 1970s, there are those who still prefer it over the lighter rifle. The M-14 forms the basis for the Marine Corps’ Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR) and special operations’ Mark 14, Mod 0 modular rifle.
The history of the M-14 begins in 1945. Ordnance Engineers at the Springfield National Armory had completed development of a new select-fire rifle designated the T20E2. The T20E2 appears to be very similar to an M-1 Garand except for a muzzle brake, a 20-round magazine and a selector switch on the receiver under the rear sight. By late summer of 1945, the new rifle was considered ready for service. The T20E2 was not as reliable as the M-1 and the recoil of the .30-06 cartridge in fully automatic fire made the rifle almost impossible to control. Regardless, the Army ordered 500,000 T20E2 rifles for the invasion of Japan, but the end of the war in August caused the order to be canceled.
The Army was developing a shorter .30 caliber cartridge that would reduce recoil, while maintaining ballistics similar to those of the .30-06. Improvements in smokeless powders accomplished in World War II along with engineering assistance by Winchester resulted in a .308 cartridge that was one third smaller and lighter than the .30-06 but with nearly identical ballistics. The new cartridge would eventually be standardized by the U.S. Army and NATO as the 7.62 x 51 mm cartridge.
A series of trials for a replacement for the M-1 Garand began in August 1952. There were two American rifles, the T44 with a modified Garand gas system and the T47 that used a falling bolt mechanism. The Belgian Fusil Automatique Leger (FAL) and the British EM-2 bullpup rifle were also evaluated. When the tests were completed in December 1952, the FAL proved superior to all other candidates. The British EM-2 and the American T47 were dropped from consideration. Development of the FAL, designated T48, and the T44 rifles continued.
Final testing was conducted in 1956 and included a series of shoot-offs between the T44 and the T48. To this day, the testing is controversial and the fact that the FAL went on to be adopted by the military forces of more than 90 countries, while the T44, type classified as the M-14, was adopted by fewer than 10 nations calls to question the objectivity of the test personnel. On 1 May 1957 the Army announced that the T44 would become the standard U.S. Army rifle and type classified as the M-14.
The M-14 was manufactured at four facilities: The Springfield National Armory, Harrington & Richardson Arms, Winchester and Thompson Ramo Woodridge (TRW). There are few differences between manufacturers in terms of reliability and safety.
Despite being beloved by millions of GIs, the M-1 experienced minor problems throughout its service life and the M-14 seemed to have cured most of those. The M-1’s bulky gas cylinder near the muzzle was reduced in size and moved back 8 inches. The way in which the gas was used to operate the action was also modified. When a cartridge is fired in an M-14, some of the expanding gases that drive the bullet forward are bled away through a port in the barrel like the M-1.
With the M-14, however, the gases expand into a short gas cylinder via a vent in the wall of a hollow gas piston rather than against the front of a solid piston connected to an operating rod. When the piston is filled, it moves to the rear, pulling the gas vent out of alignment with the gas port and shutting off the further gas flow. As the piston travels to the rear it uncovers an orifice in the cylinder bottom that vents the gases trapped in the hollow piston out of the gas cylinder. The M-14’s milder action all but eliminated most parts breakage. The M-14 gas flow can be shut off for launching grenades by rotating a spindle valve on the side of the gas cylinder block.
The M-1’s eight-round en block clip was replaced by a 20-round detachable box magazine. This allowed the soldier to “top up” his magazine via stripper clips or loose rounds at any time. This was impossible with the M-1’s clip. And there was no spring steel clip to bounce out of the breech with a distinctive “ding” that could alert an enemy to the fact that the rifle was empty. Further, when a 20-round magazine was empty, it could quickly be replaced.
The basic M-14 is a select-fire weapon; that is, it can be fired in semiautomatic mode or on full automatic. Soldiers quickly discovered that the M-14 in full automatic was impossible to control and was virtually useless tactically. This was partly because of the M-14’s traditional stock design that directed recoil forces to a point above the shooter’s shoulder, forcing the rifle down at the rear and up and to the right at the muzzle. Even the M-14A1 with its modified stock assembly that helped redirect recoil forces and its muzzle brake/compensator was virtually uncontrollable on full auto and the barrels overheated very quickly. As a squad automatic rifle, the M-14A1 was rendered almost useless by its design and the fact that it was never designed or intended for sustained automatic fire. These ineffective weapons were soon to be replaced by the 7.62x51mm M60 machine gun. Other than the M-14A1, virtually all other infantry M-14s had their selector switch removed. The M-14A1 was never fully satisfactory and production was terminated in January 1963, well before production of standard M-14s ceased.
Although the M-14 was type classified in early 1957, no production rifles were manufactured until July 1959.
The M-14 received its baptism by fire in Vietnam in 1961. U.S. Army advisers to the Republic of Vietnam Forces used the M-14 extensively in combat against the Viet Cong. The rifle was considered too large and heavy for the slightly built Vietnamese soldiers to use effectively, although the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) soldiers were equipped with M-1 rifles weighing even more. Because of availability issues, M-14 distribution was generally limited to Americans.
Questions also arose regarding the M-14’s accuracy. Rumors began to circulate, some regarding the various manufacturers’ ability to build accurate rifles, others regarding the 7.62x51mm cartridge. It was eventually determined that a combination of factors led to the M-14’s accuracy issues and once the causes were determined, they were rectified with relative ease. The M-14 today is considered to be an accurate and reliable rifle and the 7.62x51mm cartridge itself is considered one of the most inherently accurate cartridges ever produced.
At the time that the M-14 was still in early stages of fielding, the Army was investigating ArmaLite’s AR-15 rifle, developed by Eugene Stoner, Jim Sullivan and Robert Fremont. The Army staff, however, wanted no part of the AR-15 and was stalling its development. Proponents of the M-14, having taken years to get the rifle into service, were actually preventing further development of the AR-15 concept.
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara eventually demanded a full investigation not only of M-14 versus AR-15 testing but of the M-14’s overall performance in combat. The Army’s inspector general found that several tests had been rigged to show the AR-15 in a poor light, although the AR-15 had outperformed the M-14 in almost every category. In January 1963, Secretary McNamara announced that when that year’s production contracts for the M-14 were fulfilled, production of the rifle would be terminated. At the same time, he announced what was expected to be a one-time buy of 85,000 AR-15 rifles for the Army and 19,000 for the Air Force. The new rifle was type classified as the M-16.
A total of 1,380,346 M-14s was manufactured over approximately four years. Harrington & Richardson built 537,582; Springfield 167,100, Winchester 356,501 and TRW 319,163. The M-14 would remain the “Standard A” rifle until January 1968, but the M-16 was fast replacing the M-14 in Southeast Asia. When the M-14 procurement was canceled, the Marine Corps had been equipped with the M-14 for only a few months and the Army had never been completely reequipped.
The program to develop a National Match M-14 rifle began in 1959 and the first rifles were produced in 1962. In the first two years, 7,200 National Match rifles were manufactured at Springfield. TRW made 4,874 for the 1964 matches and the final 2,094 for the 1965 matches were rebuilt from existing service rifles at Springfield as production of new rifles had ceased. As it turned out, the National Match M-14 rifles made an excellent platform for a sniper rifle. The Army discovered that the National Match M-14 fitted with a range-finding telescopic sight served very well as a sniper weapon. After experimentation and field-testing the new sniper rifle was type classified as the M21.
As of the time of this writing in mid-2009, the M-14 is still playing an active, if limited, role in the U.S. military. As mentioned, it is in use by several special operations units as the Mk 14, Mod 0 and forms the basis for the Marine Corps DMR. The latter rifle is modified in such a way that it is extremely difficult for the rifle to be converted to select fire. Some units have deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq armed with M-14 rifles.
The civilian versions of the M-14 for the most part use commercial receivers with no capability to accept select-fire components and since the original M-14 was rarely used in full automatic, commercial versions might well be considered for purchase if supplies of government-owned M-14s ever become exhausted.
Despite being replaced as the military’s standard Infantry rifle in the early 1970s, the M-14 will continue to “soldier on” for the foreseeable future. There isn’t any other rifle that does anything appreciably better and there is a substantial inventory of M-14 rifles and components for repair parts.
Glock 19 vs. Sig P226 MK25: Which Pistol Is Best For Navy SEALs?
Reprint from TACTICAL-LIFE
The Glock 19 appears to be the go-to sidearm nowadays for America’s troops.
The Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) announced in October that it would be switching to the 9mm Glock 19 from the .45 Colt 1911.
Prior to that announcement, U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley reportedly requested in March that the Glock 19 find its way into the hands of his soldiers.
But the Marines and U.S. Army weren’t the first to see the benefits of using the G19. In December 2015 it was reported that the U.S. Navy SEALs were trading their Sig Sauer P226 MK25s for the Glock 19.
To examine the Navy SEALs’ switch, we’ve brought in Don Adams (Doitrite) via The Loadout Room to discuss the advantages of both the Sig Sauer P226 MK25 and the G19:
People are so offended by the Glock 19 replacing the MK25. Sig and Glock fans argue whether the Navy SEALs are stupid or smart for hours. I doubt this is going to be an argument that will cease any time soon. I want to add my 2 cents on what might be going on here.
Our military has held its current standard weapons inventory for a couple decades with very little deviation. The only change I observed in my time in the Marine Corps was an introduction to the full-auto capable MK12 with delicious OTM rounds. Times were changing fast, but I got out before the next shifts came in the form of the IAR to replace the SAW in some units, and even the Colt M45 to the Glock 19. MARSOC was the first to take the path to the Glock publicly, if I remember correctly.
I personally don’t care what the military or SF use for their pistol or rifle. Most of the time it is political in nature, as well as being budget based. If the entire military chooses the Glock 19 for their sidearm, just to skip the trials since it’s already NATO approved, so be it.
The end fact is that the pistol, no matter the model, is going to get abused, neglected, and broken. But people put too much stock into the military selection. We civilians are not in the military and when we purchase a gun, we are not getting a used and neglected gun. But let’s just look at the two pistols that are the head of this debate, shall we?
The MK25 is a very big deal, even today, for the metal framed lovers. Now this pistol has been around for decades and has seen plenty of changes, but it is still pretty much the same. I like this pistol for its easy to use controls, and how easy it is to work on for being a DA/SA pistol. The controls on this pistol are a little spread out and are pretty simple in their uses.
The grip on this pistol is actually pretty fat, and it isn’t great with gloves on if you’re vertically-challenged like me. The trigger on this pistol is undoubtedly a good trigger and a standard for other pistols on the market in the DA/SA configuration to look up to. The mag capacity is a little strained at 15, but 18rd mags are available aftermarket. If you prefer the popular thumbs forward grip with gloves, you may hold down the slide stop on the last round.
Glock 19 Gen3
The Glock 19 needs no introduction. It is the envy of a lot of pistol companies that have followed it into the polymer striker fired world. Anyways, all the controls are tight together and completely unobtrusive and dehorned. You have to mean to use them in order for them to work.
This pistol is the perfect size, and has a size to capacity ratio that other pistols try to match. It takes little training to learn and has a simple manual of arms. It is easy to work on and replacing a part can be done in less than a minute.
But this system does have its problems. The mags don’t fall out easy without a flick to encourage it, and the pistol does need sights replaced almost right away due to the cheap stock sights that are very easy to deform.
I like the Sig MK25 and I like the Glock 19. Both pistols are good, but they are from two different worlds and time periods. Their triggers and their purposes are night and day different.
I see the MK25 as a home defense and duty pistol, while I see the Glock 19 as a carry pistol. The debate about the switch to the Glock 19 will continue forever, just as the Beretta vs Sig debate still lingers. Some people will never accept this switch.
In my opinion, you should just go out, get whatever pistol you like and enjoy shooting it. I don’t really put much stock in military decisions, as I am no longer a part of that gun club. Seriously, I don’t see the point in using their choice as being a standard for your choice since the military doesn’t always make the best choices for its troops. But the only thing I am going to be watch is what parts on the Glock 19 will break constantly. What do you think?
If you found this Blog, our FaceBook Group or Chat Room helpful – Tell a friend!! We can’t do it without you!! Thanks!!
What would the Ultimate Patrol Rifle look like to you?? For starters “an ultimate” can’t just be a cute piece with some gaudy “hang-ons”. It should be a beauty that starts on the inside. The soul of the weapon… It’s a cool that should start on the inside and work it’s way out until it just oozes awesome.
Here’s what my rendition looks like. Starting with a Noveske Gen2 (OEM non-chainsaw) AR 15 upper and matching AR 15 lower receiver… add a Young Manufacturing Alloy National Match AR bolt carrier group. Make sure you polish the M4 feed ramps. Just because it’s a “patrol rifle” doesn’t mean everything shouldn’t be extra-special. The trigger group is a Wilson Combat 2-stage trigger group with a JPE trigger spring. This makes for a very usable but soft 2-stage trigger.
The barrel should also be a “cut above” excellent. This one was a special order Ballistic Advantage barrel (long wait). It is a 16″ stainless steel, heavy government profile, chambered in 5.56 NATO, with 1/8 twist – to effectively stabilize a wider variety of bullet weights (up to 69 gr). It was ordered with a pinned A2 styled front sight. Now see to it this bolt and barrel are “hand lapped” and perfectly head spaced.
All of the furniture is MagPul Moe – I get it… there are all kinds of “dress-up things” one could do. For me, the MagPul Moe is comfortable, smooth and user friendly. Speaking of comfy – the grip is the Moe “enhanced” version (which means it’s soft – like a Hogue). There are also plenty of places to add rails…or not – in which case it’s a very clean profile.
Though there is a forward sling mount (and a bayonet lug), there is also a MagPul single point harness attachment in the rear – giving one plenty of harness options.
To quickly and accurately get rounds on target this unit is topped off with – most appropriately, an Aim Point PRO (Patrol rifle Optic). It is backed up by a MaTech mil-spec, flip-up rear sight to go with the A2 style front sight. This thing is vicious cool. It can currently be seen at Mid-South Armory in Columbia, TN. (615) 330-0996
I know there are a wide variety of factors that will impact a personal choice or preference such as a daily carry weapon. How will you be dressed? What are you comfortable with? What are local carry laws, etc?? Personally, I have a couple of qualifiers and a couple of favorites. For close to home, summer carry I prefer a much lighter weapon. Believe it or not, one of my “all-time favorites” is a Colt Cobra, the .38 Special alloy framed version similar to the Detective. Not sexy, or “late model” – no fancy laser sights… but with a decent holster and good belt it is concealable – packs plenty of punch and above all, is very reliable. If you look around a bit these (or something similar) can be very reasonable.
The summer qualifier has to do with lighter clothing being harder to carry concealed than being dressed for other times of the year. My Colt is the heavier of my two “summer weapons”… however, it is relatively easy to conceal even holstered in a right front (easy to access) holster configuration. I typically carry it with a couple of “speed strips” (six rounds in an “easy to load” rubber strip) somewhere close-by. For instance, in a pocket or the of console of the truck.
Another great option for summer carry, is my Ruger LCP (in .380). In a pocket holster it is no bigger than an average wallet – a great size when wearing shorts or lighter summer clothing. I carry one of these pretty regular. It is handy, small and if the need were to arise – is fairly effective at close ranges. I took the laser off making it even a little smaller and lighter. At the ranges I consider it to be effective I won’t need a laser. Plus, carrying it around in a back pocket all day almost guarantees hitting the laser switch and having a dead battery. Take it off.
If I were in the market for just such a piece today I might look into the Ruger LC9s Pro. It is a very similar in size to the LCP but is a striker fired mechanism. They have made some exception advances on the DAO trigger. It is NICE. Another factor – it is also a 9mm vs the .380 ACP round. I hope some of these thoughts help. What is your favorite carry weapon??
Gun News – Rifle Manufacturer John Noveske Mysteriously Killed Shortly After Posting Controversial Article
By Bob Price
Guns don’t kill people. People on psychotropic drugs kill people – sometimes with guns.
Last week, publications in the firearms industry around the U.S. reported that legendary rifle manufacturer John Noveske died in a tragic single car accident. According to The Outdoor Wire website,
“Oregon State Police (OSP) Sergeant Tyler Lee reports that on January 4, 2013 at approximately 9:13 p.m., a 1984 Toyota Land Cruiser driven by John Noveske, age 36, from Grants Pass, was westbound on Highway 260 near El Camino Way. As the vehicle negotiated a right curve, it traveled across the oncoming lane onto the dirt highway shoulder until it struck two large boulders. The vehicle rolled and Mr. Noveske was ejected.”
The firearms industry is a very close community and the loss of John Noveske will be greatly felt by us all. This time of year, in particular, gun dealers and manufacturers gather at many trade shows and distributor shows to line out plans and purchases for the upcoming year. I am sure this will be a major point of discussion at the upcoming S.H.O.T. Show in Las Vegas later this coming week.
Interestingly, about a week before this car wreck, Noveske published a post on his Facebook page about the connection in recent mass-casualty shootings to drugs being prescribed to the people who committed these crimes. In a January 10th article I posted in response to an email from Sen. Dick Durbin, I said that rather than focusing on the guns being used in these shootings we should look at the people who are committing these crimes and what might be causing them to take these extreme actions.
The Natural News article re-posted Noveske’s last Facebook post, dated December 27th. This writer makes no claims about the accuracy of the following text from that posting:
Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.
Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.
Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California
Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking
Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.
Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)
Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)
Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.
Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.
Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.
Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.
A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.
Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”
Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.
Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.
Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.
Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.
Missing from list… 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds….
What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21…… killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az
What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24….. killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado
What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or
What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct
Roberts is the only one that I haven’t heard about being on drugs of some kind.
Noveske was not the only highly-visible person in the firearms to die since this recent anti-gun panic began. The New York Daily News reported, along with several other publications, that Keith Ratliff, creator of number 10 ranked YouTube channel, FPS Russia, was found shot to death in his Carnesville, Georgia. His death is being investigated by local authorities as a homicide. He was found with a single gunshot wound to the head that, according to investigators “was not self-inflicted”.
Are these deaths related in any way other than the coincidence of them both being highly visible in the firearms industry? Only time will tell, but for now I think it is important to look at the message Noveske discussed just before his death. Is there an epidemic of over-prescription of drugs that are altering peoples’ mental states tp the point where they are committing these horrible crimes? Let’s have a real discussion about the issues related to violence committed by people with guns. Certainly this is a more important issue to look into than how many bullets I can put into a magazine.
What Does the Bible Say About the Right to Bear Arms?
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “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.”
In light of recent mass shootings, however, this right of the people to keep and bear arms has come under heavy fire and heated debate.
The current White House Administration and several recent polls seem to suggest that most Americans favor stricter gun laws.
So, what are the concerns for Christians in this debate over stricter gun laws? Does the Bible say anything about the right to bear arms?
Is Self-Defense Biblical?
According to conservative leader and Wall Builders founder David Barton, the original intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the Second Amendment was to guarantee citizens “the biblical right of self-defense.”
Richard Henry Lee (1732–1794), a signer of the Declaration of Independence who helped frame the Second Amendment in the First Congress, wrote, “… to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
As many of the Founding Fathers recognized, Barton believes that “the ultimate goal of the Second Amendment is to make sure you can defend yourself against any kind of illegal force that comes against you, whether that is from a neighbor, whether that is from an outsider or whether that is from your own government.”
Obviously, the Bible does not specifically address the issue of gun control, since firearms like we use today were not manufactured in ancient times. But accounts of warfare and the use of weaponry, such as swords, spears, bows and arrows, darts and slings were well-documented in the pages of the Bible.
As I began researching biblical perspectives on the right to bear arms, I decided to speak with Mike Wilsbach, the manager of security at my church. Wilsbach is a retired combat veteran who also teaches personal defense classes. “To me the Bible couldn’t be clearer on the right, even the duty, we have as believers to self-defense,” said Wilsbach.
He reminded me that in the Old Testament “the Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They didn’t send in the Marines. The people defended themselves.”
We see this clearly in passages like 1 Samuel 25:13:
And David said to his men, “Every man strap on his sword!” And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword. And about four hundred men went up after David, while two hundred remained with the baggage. (ESV)
So, each man had a sword ready to be holstered and used when required.
And in Psalm 144:1, David wrote: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle…”
Besides instruments of warfare, weapons were used in the Bible for the purpose of self-defense; nowhere in Scripture is this forbidden.
In the Old Testament, we find this example of God sanctioning self-defense:
“If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.” (Exodus 22:2, NLT)
In the New Testament, Jesus sanctioned the use of weapons for self-defense. While giving his farewell discourse to the disciples before going to the cross, he instructed the apostles to purchase side arms to carry for self-protection.
He was preparing them for the extreme opposition and persecution they would face in future missions:
And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38, ESV)
Conversely, as soldiers seized Jesus at his arrest, our Lord warned Peter (in Matthew 26:52-54 and John 18:11) to put away his sword: “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Some scholars believe this statement was a call to Christian pacifism, while others understand it simply to mean in a general sense that “violence breeds more violence”.
Rendered in the English Standard Version, Jesus told Peter to “put your sword back in its place.” Wilsbach explained, “That place would be at his side. Jesus didn’t say, ‘Throw it away.’ After all, he had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason … was obvious—to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. Jesus was saying ‘Peter, this is not the right time for a fight.'”
It’s interesting to note that Peter openly carried his sword, a weapon similar to the type Roman soldiers employed at the time. Jesus knew Peter was carrying a sword. He allowed this, but forbid him to use it aggressively. Most importantly, Jesus did not want Peter to resist the inevitable will of God the Father, which our Savior knew would be fulfilled by his arrest and eventual death on the cross.
Scripture is quite clear that Christians are called to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9), and to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-40). Thus, any aggressive or offensive violence was not the purpose for which Jesus had instructed them to carry a sidearm just hours earlier.
Life and Death, Good and Evil
A sword, as with a handgun or any firearm, in and of itself is not aggressive or violent. It is simply an object; it can be used either for good or for evil. Any weapon in the hands of someone intent on evil can be used for violent or wicked purposes. In fact, a weapon is not required for violence. The Bible doesn’t tell us what kind of weapon the first murderer,Cain, used to kill his brother Abel in Genesis 4. Cain could have used a stone, a club, a sword, or perhaps even his bare hands. A weapon was not mentioned in the account.
Weapons in the hands of law-abiding, peace-loving citizens can be used for good purposes such as hunting, recreational and competitive sports, and keeping peace. Beyond self-defense, a person properly trained and prepared to use a firearm can actually deter crime, employing the weapon to protect innocent lives and prevent violent offenders from succeeding in their crimes.
In The Life and Death Debate:
Moral Issues of Our Time, leading Christian apologists James Porter Moreland and Norman L. Geisler wrote:
“To permit a murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”
Now, let’s return to Exodus 22:2, but read a little further through verse 3:
“If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder. But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty of murder…” (NLT)
Why is it considered murder if the thief is killed during a daytime break-in?
Pastor Tom Teel, an associate pastor entrusted with overseeing the security personnel at my church, answered this question for me: “In this passage God stated that it’s okay to protect yourself and your family. In the dark, it is impossible to see and know for certain what someone is up to; whether an intruder has come to steal, inflict harm, or to kill, is unknown at the time. In the daylight, things are clearer. We can see if a thief has come just to swipe a loaf of bread through an open window, or if an intruder has come with more violent intentions. God does not make a special dispensation to kill someone over theft. That would be murder.”
Defense, Not Offense
Scripture, we know, does not promote vengeance (Romans 12:17-19) or vigilantism, but it does allow believers to engage in self-defense, to resist evil, and to defend the defenseless.
Wilsbach put it like this: “I believe I have the responsibility to defend myself, my family, and my home. For every verse that I have used as a case for defense, there are verses that teach peace and harmony. I agree with those verses; however, when there is no other alternative, I believe I am charged with the responsibility to defend.”
Another clear basis for this idea is found in the book of Nehemiah. When exiled Jews returned to Israel to rebuild the Temple walls, their leader Nehemiah wrote:
From that day on, half of my men did the work, while the other half were equipped with spears, shields, bows and armor. The officers posted themselves behind all the people of Judah who were building the wall. Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked. (Nehemiah 4:16-18, NIV)
Weapons, we can conclude, are not the problem. Nowhere does the Bible forbid Christians from bearing arms. But wisdom and caution are of the utmost importance if one does choose to bear a lethal weapon. Anyone who owns and carries a firearm should be properly trained, and know and carefully follow all safety rules and laws pertaining to such a responsibility.
Ultimately, the decision to bear arms is a personal choice determined by one’s own convictions. As a believer, the use of deadly force would be applied only as a last resort, when no other option is available, to prevent an evil from being committed and to protect human life.
Stop Obama’s Planned Gag Order On Firearm-Related Speech
It’s happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.
Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration’s “Unified Agenda” of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.
To understand the proposal and why it’s so serious, some background information is necessary.
For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called “defense articles” and “defense services” in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part “U.S. Munitions List,” which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.
Also regulated under ITAR are so-called “technical data” about defense articles. These include, among other things, “detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information” about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.
In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the “public domain.” Essentially, this means data “which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public” through a variety of specified means. These include “at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.” Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.
The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been “exported,” as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized “export,” including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.
Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.
But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation?
Time is of the essence! Public comment will be accepted on the proposed gag order until August 3, 2015. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.”
Finally, please contact your U.S. Senators and Member of Congress. Urge them to oppose the State Department’s attempt to censor online speech concerning the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition. Use the “Write Your Lawmakers” feature on our website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.
The Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution 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.”
That statement is pretty clear to understand and comprehend, yet some folks just can’t seem to get over it. There are liberal progressive folks of the left who feel it is their mission in life to relegate the Second Amendment as meaningless. Now, what I am about to say will probably anger some people but so be it.
I’m often asked about FEMA camps along the interstate, Walmart stores closing, and the impending Operation Jade Helm. I continue to tell people that while you’re running around with your hair on fire concerning yourself about these stories, the Obama administration is doing the “Kansas City Shuffle” — you look right while they go left.
Get a load of THIS quiet assault going on – not just on our Second Amendment, but our First as well.
As reported by the Washington Examiner, “Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.
“In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail. According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.”
“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting. “This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.”
The result is that the Obama administration is going to assault the First Amendment in order to undermine the Second. Once again the bureaucratic regulatory state has reared its ugly head, developed a rule and posted it to the Federal Registry without the consent and knowledge of the American people, nor their Representatives. This is yet another means by which the Obama administration — aka, the liberal progressive left, is seeking to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Of course you’re asking, how can this be done and what does the State Department have to do with this?
As the Examiner writes, “At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers. The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.” …
As typical for the government gobbledegook, it took State Department 14-pages to explain but the NRA sought to encapsulate their overreach: “With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be ‘clarifying’ the rules concerning ‘technical data’ posted online or otherwise ‘released’ into the ‘public domain.’ To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.”
Now of course the Obama defenders will say what does this have to do with infringing on the right to keep and bear arms — much ado about nothing. But here is the objective: the government is seeking to restrict the free speech of American gun owners and the gun industry in sharing information pertaining to their ability to keep arms. Furthermore, the government is using regulatory coercion and threat of imprisonment to create behavior modification — not exactly a positive reflection on our governing system.
In addition, the Obama administration is seeking to surrender U.S. Constitutional gun ownership rights to international code — a violation of the sovereignty of our Republic. It’s just another attempt to chip away at our liberty by circumventing the legislative process and our rule of law. THAT is why this matters.
We’re entering that dangerous area of critical mass where America has an executive branch and a president who in their final eighteen months together will complete their fundamental transformation — by any means necessary.
The Obama administration and the progressive socialist left have effectively become “da man.” And because they’ve gone down that path, we may be entering a time of warranted civil disobedience. To think, that if I, Allen West, a law-abiding American citizen, were to write technical details or make a video about my Bushmaster AR-15 on this website without prior approval of the State Department, I could face a $1 million fine or 20 years in jail is simply beyond belief and comprehension. Welcome to the new America, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood liberal progressives.
Message to State Department: first of all, teach John Kerry how to ride a bike, then leave us the heck alone and stop trying to undermine our individual rights.
Message to President Obama: get a strategy to defeat ISIS, because we are not going to allow you to disarm our citizenry so your Islamist pals can overtake us here in our homeland. And I say that fully aware that PSD-11 demonstrates the Obama administration’s collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood — and we know exactly what the Brotherhood has intended for America in their Explanatory Memorandum written in 1991 by Mohammed Akhram. In case you don’t know, a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11 was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, no one is allowed to actually read it.
So please folks, instead of FEMA camps, Walmarts, and Jade Helm, study the ITAR and realize how the Obama administration is doing everything possible to slowly undermine your right to keep and bear arms.
Then, flood State Department phone lines demanding they rescind the unconstitutional rule or face the wrath of American gun owners who will not comply.
OBAMA’S SECRETIVE GUN BAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES
In a the latest backdoor gun control effort put forward by the White House, President Obama is pushing to ban gun possession for Social Security beneficiaries who are incapable of handling their own finances.
The specific details of the ban are unknown, as it is being put together “outside of public view.” But the LA Times reports that a ban on gun possession due to inability to handle finances would be sweeping; that it would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”
The Times notes that the finances of roughly “4.2 million” Social Security beneficiaries are handled by someone else.
Yale Psychologist Dr. Marc Rosen has seen this same tact used on US veterans and warns that those applying it to guns under the presumption that needing help with financial management equates to violent tendencies are simply mistaken. Rosen said, “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe. They are very different determinations.”
The Times provides an example of 30-year-old US Marine Steve Overman. He requires help with his finances because of “weakened..memory and cognitive ability” resulting from a roadside bomb in Iraq. The “VA eventually deemed him 100% disabled and after reviewing his case in 2012 declared him incompetent, making his wife his fiduciary.”
Because of this, he had to get his guns out of his house–taking them a relative’s home–in order to avoid losing them. This same scenario could play out again–millions of times–if the Social Security Administration uses the “mental defective” categorization that the VA uses.
Under this one category alone, approximately “2.7 million” Social Security beneficiaries could lose gun rights.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com
NRA Applauds Congressman Johnson for Swift Action on Social Security Gun Grab
The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today lauded Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, for his swift action urging the Social Security Administration (SSA) to stop developing a system to enter social security beneficiaries into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is the Obama administration’s latest effort to deny millions of Americans their Second Amendment rights without due process.
“If left to their own devices, President Obama’s Social Security Administration would be free to implement the largest gun grab in American history,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA. “The NRA appreciates Chairman Johnson’s swift action to put a halt to this outrageous scheme that would deny millions of Americans a fundamental constitutional right because they need or want help managing their finances.”
According to a published news report, the SSA is considering a policy to provide the names of social security and disability beneficiaries who have a “representative payee” to the NICS. Once entered into the NICS, a person loses their Second Amendment rights and is prohibited from possessing or owning a firearm. If implemented as reported, this would instantly deny more than four million Americans their Second Amendment rights based on their willingness or ability to manage their finances.
“The Obama administration will stop at nothing to strip as many people as possible of their Second Amendment rights,” Cox said. “The NRA will employ all means available to prevent the implementation of such a widespread injustice.”
The Veterans Administration (VA) has already implemented a similar program to designate veterans as “prohibited persons” when they have a fiduciary assigned to administer their VA benefits. Like the SSA program described above, the VA procedures are also devoid of significant due process protections. To date, 177,000 veterans have been denied their constitutional rights based on their inability to manage their financial affairs.
The SSA’s actions stem from a 2013 Obama administration memorandum. The memorandum directed numerous government agencies to comb their records and identify any information that could be “relevant” to identifying dangerous and mentally unstable people for NICS reportage. Currently, federal prohibitions against acquiring or possessing firearms apply to felons, drug addicts, those adjudicated as “mentally defective” and others convicted of certain violent misdemeanors. The prohibition the SSA is reported to be developing would expand the current criteria to include those receiving benefits who need or want help managing their money.
VETS TOLD THEY CAN ‘BUY BACK’ 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
‘This is illegal and is called extortion’
A legal team investigating the Obama administration’s order that certain American military veterans deemed “incompetent” give up their weapons says the problem is worse than expected.
People who live with veterans now are being ordered not to possess a gun, and some veterans are told they can “buy back” their Second Amendment rights by giving up their veterans’ benefits.
“This is simply unbelievable, On the one hand the [Veterans Administration] and the FBI have found veterans to be mentally ill and too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms, while on the other hand allowing these allegedly dangerous people to buy their firearms rights back,” wrote Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation in a report.
“This is illegal and is called extortion.”
The organization has been looking into claims by a number of veterans and their family members.
The veterans were sent a letter telling them they were being classified as incompetent and the government was assigning someone to help them handle their benefits and payments.
Consequently, they were told, they could no longer own weapons, under penalty of fines and jail time.
The problem was that the veterans were being determined guilty without a hearing regarding the potential loss of their constitutional rights, USJF said at the time.
WND broke the story that the Obama administration insisted it was routine for officials to send out letters informing veterans that an unidentified “report” indicated they may be declared incompetent and consequently stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
It’s the same administration that in 2009 warned that “returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists.”
The 2009 report from the Department of Homeland Security was called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It also said Obama’s governmental managers were “concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”
So when hundreds, perhaps thousands, of veterans began receiving letters like the one dispatched from the Portland, Oregon, office of the Department of Veterans Affairs, alarm bells went off.
In the recent report, Connelly explained he’s uncovered so far “a coordinated effort by multiple federal agencies to disarm the American people.”
He cited the tactic of sending letters to veterans about being appointed a “fiduciary” and the resulting loss of constitutional rights.
“As we have gotten more aggressive in representing individual veterans to defend their constitutional rights the VA has adopted additional tactics against our American heroes,” the report said. “Some veterans have never gotten any letter or official notification from the VA. They find out they are on the NCIS list [of people banned from having weapons] when they try to purchase a firearm.
“Often they can’t even find out why they are on the list.”
Or veterans are told they are incompetent and can appeal the decision.
“But [they] are being told that if they do defy the government and appeal, their benefit payments can be suspended for the duration of the appeal, which can drag on for years,” the report said.
“The families of veterans are also [being] told that since they live with a veteran who has been declared incompetent they can’t own or purchase firearms.”
Or there’s that option to give up benefits, the report said.
And it’s expanding. Seniors on Medicare, some dental patients and even children seeing pediatricians have been questioned about firearm ownership.
Medical records are being passed from the Department of Health and Human Services to the FBI “of anyone who has ever told their physician they were feeling depressed, even if never treated, and anyone who has taken certain drugs for things like PTSD, ADD, or ADHD, among others.”
And, the report said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is adding regulations that ban from owning weapons anyone who ever was “examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist,” a routine part of many family court cases.
“What is next? Will you have to surrender your firearms to keep your Social Security, or to stay on Medicare? Will you have to certify that neither you nor any of you[r] employees own firearms in order to get a contract with the federal government?”
The door to the dispute opened when USJF received a copy of a letter to a veteran from the Portland VA Medical Center several years ago.
The letter warned the vet that “evidence indicates that you are not able to handle your VA benefit payments because of a physical or mental condition.”
“We propose to rate you incompetent for VA purposes. This means we must decide if you are able to handle your VA benefit payments. We will base our decision on all the evidence we already have including any other evidence you sent to us.”
The VA also warned: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both.”
The letter was signed by K. Kalama, Veterans Service Center manager in the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs. But it didn’t present the “evidence,” the source of the evidence or why the veteran’s competency even was questioned.
At the time, WND contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs, and spokesman Randy Noller responded with a statement that the letters were no more than routine. But questions about why the letters are being sent, what evidence is used to determine a veteran is incapable of managing his or her affairs, who provides that information and why it is provided remain unanswered.
“The Department of Veterans Affairs’ policy to inform veterans of their rights regarding the Brady Act has not changed,” the statement said. “As has been policy for multiple administrations, VA acts in accordance with federal law and works with the Department of Justice to properly maintain the NCIS database. VA notifies any veteran who may be deemed by VA to be mentally incapable of managing his or her own funds of the opportunity to contest this determination and also to seek relief from the reporting requirements under the Brady Act, as required by law.”
Also unanswered was who makes the decision to put in motion the department’s decision to “deem” veterans “mentally incapable.”
Connelly noted the letter “provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA.”
“In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent,” he explained.
“This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
Read the letter that got the investigation started:
Less Focus on Gun Control, More Focus on Who Controls Guns
Nance: “Shouldn’t we have more input from groups who represent those with mental illness?”
Washington D.C. – Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) CEO and President Penny Nance has issued the following statement regarding Vice President Biden’s meetings to discuss gun control:
“Today, as the Vice President meets to discuss gun control, I can’t help but wonder why parents’ groups haven’t been invited to the table? As the President of the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, I would be happy to represent over 500,000 women worried about the security of their most precious possession, their children and the ability to protect them. One in 10 women has already made a choice about protecting their children and has chosen to own a gun (CNN).
“Shouldn’t Parents’ Television Council, who works tirelessly to protect our children from the glorified violence in media, have a seat at Vice President Biden’s table as well? Shouldn’t we have more input from groups who represent those with mental illness? National Association on Mental Illness should have a say, given that the shooters in Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine all exhibited signs of mental illness. Vice President Biden needs to pull up a few more chairs and bring all concerned to the table focusing less on gun control and focusing more on those who control the guns.”
If you would like to schedule an interview with CWALAC CEO and President Penny Nance please contact Alice Stewart at firstname.lastname@example.org or 202-365-5654.
Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with 500,000 participating members across the country, over 450 Prayer/Action Chapters and Home Teams, 600 trained leaders and over 30 years of service to our nation.
A while back a friend of mine (a local Police Officer) ran across a real clunker 1911. I think I recall him saying he paid 150.00 for it. He brought it to me and asked if I could do anything with it. The gun was in numerous pieces and was basically stuffed in a plastic Ziploc baggie. This gun was in really, really rough shape. I told him I would be glad to work on it for him – but it would be a pretty serious project. There is no way it would be a quick or easy process.
In starting the initial assessment of this 1911 and included parts, one of the first things I notice is the overall poor condition and exceptionally bad quality of work having been done on this gun in the not-too-distant past. My initial reaction was that the gun appeared to have been spray painted with a cheap, gloss black, spray paint. It had large chunks of paint peeling off the slide and had an overall “used bicycle” feel to it. However, in retrospect and as I write this story – I have to admit it is possible this was just very poor prep job with one of those “home Duracoat kits” thrown on top. Though I have used such kits with some success in the past – that may have been what happened.
In evaluating the sum of the parts there were some minor bright spots 😉 The slide was an older Colt with a BoMar type sight set-up (big blade – two way adjustable rear). The front blade was welded in place and still in decent shape, so barring major surgery – we’re kind of stuck with that. Not the end of the world. The frame was what appeared to be an early Springfield Armory 1911 frame – not in terribly good shape, but hard to tell under all the gunk. The barrel was also S/A and appeared to have been worked with a wire wheel at some point. Many of the “small parts” (as Brownell’s calls them) and the rear mainspring housing were either wore out, really ugly or just not serviceable.
First things first, I gathered up all the parts, gave the top part of the frame a good scrubbing with 320 polishing cloth (to remove the big chunks) and set about fitting this gun back together. To my shock – though the trigger seemed to hang-up pretty good and the upper-to-lower fit was very sloppy things looked promising. That slop is a tough one – once it’s too loose, it’s a virtual impossibility to tighten things back up…but I had a trick in mind. We’ll get to that later. This would have been the stage – if there were any major fitting issues I would have fixed them – before proceeding. I have even seen the big “gun shows” get all the parts finished and try assembly before a full fitting. Dum duh dum dum….
Now on to the theme for the gun. I have in mind a bit of a “new retro” feel with an older style hammer, grip safety, and the sights we already have. On the other hand Shawn wanted to get in on the action too and got busy ordering some parts. He scored a checkered mainspring housing and mag well attachment (in dark blue/black). He also picked up a complete new pin set (in black) and all new springs (Main, Recoil and Leaf – or triple). Shawn wanted a Black on Black look – but I vetoed him. I went with a desert tan lower frame color and a flat black for the slide (I knew he would like it once it was done). All the trim and accessories will also be black. So we’ve settled on a two tone desert tan/flat black upper with all black trim.
More on this story – later…
If you found this blog, our website or forum helpful – Tell a friend!! We couldn’t do it without you!! Thanks!!
His crazy proposals are so extreme, few of the initiatives pose serious threat
Surrounded by child-props, Barack Obama yesterday proposed a semi-automatic ban so extreme that it could potentially outlaw up to 50% of all long guns in circulation and up to 80% of all handguns.
Originally, Obama’s allies had announced they would reintroduce the 1994 ban on commonly-owned, defensive firearms. That was until they found out that they would look like fools, since that semi-auto ban was largely the law of Connecticut on the day the Newtown shooting occurred — and didn’t cover Adam Lanza’s AR-15. (which Lanza did not even use in the shootings)After that, gun grabbers just kept adding more and more guns until they would register (or ban) a huge percentage of the defensive guns in existence.
So where are we now?
Obama’s crazy gun ban is now being denounced by many Democrats. And, although you don’t “pop the cork” until Congress adjourns, it will probably take the magazine ban down the toilet with it.
This means that gun owners’ focus must now shift to the part of Obama’s agenda which poses the most danger because it is most likely to move: the requirement that the government approve every gun transfer in America — the so-called universal background check.
All of you know why this is a problem. But how do you explain it so simply that even a congressman can understand? Let’s take a crack at that:
ONE: THE FBI’S “SECRET LIST” WHICH IS BEING USED TO BAR AMERICANS FROM OWNING GUNS IS INSIDIOUS
The FBI’s database currently contains the names of more than 150,000 veterans. They served their country honorably. They did nothing wrong. But, because they sought counseling for a traumatic experience while risking their lives for America, they have had their constitutional rights summarily revoked, with no due process whatsoever.
You want to know something else? The “secret list” could soon include tens of millions of Americans — including soldiers, police, and fire fighters — with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and even post-partem depression. This would be achieved under the 23 anti-gun “executive actions” that Obama announced yesterday.
TWO: THE FBI REFUSES TO INSURE US THAT IT ISN’T TURNING ITS “SECRET LIST” INTO A NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY
Our legislative counsel drafted the Smith amendment in 1998 to prohibit the FBI from using the Brady Check system to tax gun buyers or put their names into a gun registry. But the FBI refuses to tell us — or even to tell U.S. Senators — how (or whether) it is complying with the Smith amendment. Why in the world should we give the FBI more authority and more names if it abuses the authority it already has?
This is the inherent problem with any background check, where gun buyers’ names are given to a government bureaucrat. Is there any way to make sure that once a name is entered into a computer, that it doesn’t stay there permanently?
This concern is especially valid, considering how federal agents are already skirting the laws against gun owner registration. Several dealers around the country have informed GOA that the ATF is increasingly going into gun shops and just xeroxing all of the 4473’s, giving them the names of every gun owner who purchased a gun through that shop — and setting up the basis for a national registration system.
This is illegal under the 1986 McClure-Volkmer law, but that has apparently not stopped it from being done. If every gun in America has to go through a dealer, this will create a mechanism to compile a list of every gun owner in America. And, as we have seen with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has just been legislatively handed such a list, when that happens, the talk immediately turns to “confiscation.”
THREE: AS A RESULT, REQUIRING GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF EVERY GUN OWNER IN AMERICA WOULD DO NOTHING BUT CREATE A PLATFORM FOR NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION AND CONFISCATION.
As alluded to above, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo now has a comprehensive gun registry. This is the most dangerous thing that New York legislators could have done — as Cuomo has made it clear he’s considering gun confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms.
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,'” Cuomo said. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
How nice. He’ll let gun owners “permit” their guns for now — so that, presumably, they can be confiscated later, just as certain defensive weapons were confiscated in New York City during the Mayor David Dinkins administration in 1991.
FOUR: THE FBI REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW GUARANTEEING THE RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE PURCHASERS
The Brady Law requires that the FBI correct erroneous denials of firearms purchases. And it requires that it reply, initially, within five days. According to attorneys familiar with the problem, the FBI NEVER, EVER, EVER complies with the law. In fact, it increasingly tells aggrieved legitimate purchasers to “sue us” — at a potential cost of tens of thousands of dollars.
FIVE: EVEN UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE BRADY SYSTEM HAS BROKEN DOWN REPEATEDLY
Since its inception, the FBI’s computer systems have often gone offline for hours at a time — sometimes for days. And when it fails on weekends, it results in the virtual blackout of gun sales at gun shows across the country.
According to gun laws expert Alan Korwin, “With the NICS computer out of commission, the only place you could legally buy a firearm — in the whole country — was from a private individual, since all dealers were locked out of business by the FBI’s computer problem.”
Of course, now the President wants to eliminate that last bastion of freedom!
Recently, the FBI’s system went down on Black Friday, angering many gun dealers and gun buyers around the country. “It means we can’t sell no damn guns,” said Rick Lozier, a manager at Van Raymond Outfitters in Maine. “If we can’t call it in, we can’t sell a gun. It’s cost us some money.”
The bottom line: Our goal is to insure that Obama’s politicized dog-and-pony show doesn’t produce one word of new gun law. Not a single word.
And the biggest danger right now is universal background checks — which would create a platform for national registration and confiscation.
We would note that, in addition, Obama is attempting to illegally enact gun control through unlawful and unconstitutional “executive actions.” .
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
I am proud to support the President and Vice President’s effort to combat gun violence in our country. In the aftermath of the tragic Newtown shooting, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), together with the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the FBI have worked to identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings. In the coming days, DHS will expand and formalize coordination of ongoing efforts intended to prevent future mass casualty shootings, improve preparedness, and to strengthen security and resilience in schools and other potential targets. DHS will work with partners at all levels of government, to address five critical areas intended to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings in the United States: Prevention, Protection, Response, Education, and Research/Evaluation. DHS will also work with law enforcement to refresh, expand and prioritize the implementation of nationwide public awareness efforts such as the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign. This is a critical issue that requires immediate attention and I look forward to supporting the President and this Administration as we move ahead.”
This pretty much sets forth the two positions.
I was amused to see that Janet Napolitano added TM – trademarked – to the DHS’s marketing campaign slogan, “If you see something, say something.” Joe Goebbels would have appreciated that one! He was always on the lookout for ways to influence public opinion. Here is a woman who is committed to property rights of a certain kind – trademarking – but not of another kind: reserving the right to own guns. Here is a card-carrying federal bureaucrat.
My attitude is this: the Second Amendment announces in principle the sovereignty of the armed citizen. For as long as Americans possess this right, they will not need to use their guns to revolt.
We don’t need to shoot tyrants. We only need to prepare ourselves for the day when the Feds run out of enough money to enforce their trademarked slogans. That day is coming.
My next “gun project” is a Romanian SAR-2 in 5.45×39 “Rehab” project. I hope you enjoy. I picked this gun up a while back. It has been “kind-of” tact’ed out. The minute I laid eyes on it I knew what had to happen. Stay tuned as I walk through the steps of this project…
More on this story – later…
If you found this blog, our website or forum helpful – Tell a friend!! We can’t do it without you!! Thanks!!