GUN CONTROL - A CUNNING TRAP? Constitutional Convention ONLY 2 MORE STATES NEEDED TO RATIFY

Well I hope that you find this article interesting. If so could you please give it a back to page 1 every now and then so that others can get a chance to see it. Thanks 7491

This is the type of FORWARD thinking and information that I come to GLP for...

This should be PINNED...

Wow, thanks.

Sorry, I forgot to log in.

It seems that the gunnies are the most ardent supporters of ousting Obama. Go figure.

I feel the most important thing here is to remember is that,

the right to bear arms has been around for some 230+years.

And to think for one moment that anything....

or anyone....

Could believe that this "right"handed down...

Not only from our forethers....

but our fathers as well........

could so easly be taking away is a "BIG"MASTAKE.........

........bumpity..bump...

bump....... ....

For JUSTICE AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.....

I think I now know what Mr 666 (Henry Kissinger) was talking about when he told the Russians a few months ago that there would soon be gun control in the USA.

....all I can say is this could be a heads up.....

Cheers OP

All need to be informed and be very aware


Hegelian Dialective is common


they squeeze


people struggle


acknowledge there is a problem

react to that


and they provide 2 equally BAD SOLUTIONS


problem reaction solution



and neither "solution" is a good option-this way when either solution YOU picked they can insult you and I or fan the flames of falsehoods.

Yes - playing both ends against the middle. Though oddly enough I do vaguely remember reading of the dangers of a con-con a year or so back. What it would mean re gun control and several other issues as well.

But that was way before the 2008 election and this latest twist.

OUTSTANDING GLP THREAD

5 stars here

Thanks OP, now another puzzle piece has fallen into place. I kept asking myself what is the purpose of holding back the BC and mocking, etc. The same would have happened with McCain as the left would have demanded he be impeached for being born in Panama. Obama with refusing to release records gave them more time to put the finishing touches on their plan for a ConCon.

We all know that we are being manipulated but I couldn't put my finger on the purpose. Hopefully I don't get banned for posting this. Bernays would be especially appreciative of current events.

BTW, also gave 5 stars.

I think this is pin-worthy.

I like it. Don't underestimate these globalists.

Thanks, Smilin' Irish Eyes.

Actually I didn't know that McCain was born in Panama. When election time comes around I tend to "switch off," you hear so much BS from both sides of the fence that you just lose interest. But you are right, if he had won then the Democrats would keep going on about it.

PS: Thanks for the :pinthis: and the 5 stars.

Last Edited by 7491 on 08/06/2009 12:00 PM

Do you have a list of the states that did sign up for the con con? Do you know what dates they signed up?

Enlilson,

I think that you are being a bit unfair. Are you actually saying that a President who (I think) was probably not born in the USA should be President, in defiance of the constitution?

No, all this was cunningly planned many years ago by the devil and is now coming to it's climax. Don't forget as someone once said..."America has the best politicians that money can buy."

Here is another article with more information that I hope you will find of interest.

Title: AMERICANS READY TO GIVE UP SOME CHERISHED FREEDOMS FOR "GREATER SAFETY"!

Subtitle: Shockingly, a recent poll shows that Americans are ready to give up some of their freedoms for the "promise" of greater security from the Government. Our enslavement is getting closer! People are starting to demand "peace and safety " on domestic issues.

The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!


Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!

Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.


YOU ARE NOW ON

THE CUTTING EDGE

Benjamin Franklin -- "Those people who would surrender some of their freedoms to obtain safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." 1776, Circa.

These words of wise warning reverberated strongly in my historic ears as I read the title of the article we shall be discussing today. Benjamin Franklin was urging members of the Continental Congress to hold firm and unbudging in their battle against the English Throne, rejecting all offers of compromise. Had old Ben's advice not been heeded, America probably would have remained under British rule. Americans would not have received their glorious freedoms and their wonderful Constitutional Government that has protected us from the whims of tyrannical English kings and queens.

The stakes were high then, and are even higher now. We have demonstrated that our leadership is not American but Illuminist, not patriots but globalists, and not Christian but Satanic. They are mightily moving the world into the New World Order Kingdom of Antichrist, with Satan himself controlling the marionette strings.

Since massive efforts have been undertaken to suspend our Constitution, or to amend it via a Constitutional Convention [ConCon], we should be very, very upset at a poll which asks the specific question about amending the Constitution, and gets a majority positive response! Let us now review this poll:

NEWS BRIEF: "America's Poll: Americans ready to trade some cherished freedoms for greater safety for themselves -- and their children," USA Weekend Report, A Special Report by Gregg Easterbrook, July 2-4, 1999, p. 6-8.

"Just two months after the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado, horrific gun crimes by the young have reached such runaway proportions it's become hard to keep track. Would Americans accept new restrictions on guns and Hollywood -- and surrender some freedoms -- to prevent another Columbine? That's what a USA WEEKEND poll has found."

"Surrender some freedoms" is the catch phrase that should send all sorts of red lights flashing in your brain. Whenever a government can persuade some people to give up some of their freedoms some of the time, it usually is not long until that government can find pretext enough to take all of the freedoms from all of the people all of the time. This is the slippery slope on which we have now embarked, and all Americans should be very, very concerned, if not outright frightened.

"The scientific poll of 1,005 adults shows dramatic support around the nation, and across lines of sex and race, for strict regulation of guns, less gratuitous violence in entertainment and heightened security measures in public places. The poll suggests Columbine may have been a defining moment in public opinion ... Columbine High may have changed sensibilities in many areas. Poll respondents indicate surprising willingness to impose new restrictions, accept impositions such as metal detectors -- even to amend the Constitution -- in return for greater safety for themselves and their children."

Stop right there! "Poll respondents indicate surprising willingness to ... amend the Constitution"?

DID YOU KNOW THE SWEEPING POWERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION?

This proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention in order to amend the Constitution would absolutely result in the loss of our freedoms ! For decades now, New World Order advocates have been trying desperately to get a Constitutional Convention called, for any reason whatsoever. You see, they know something about Constitutional Law that the vast, vast majority of Americans simply do not know, since we have been so badly educated in our Public School Systems.

They know that, even if the Constitutional Convention is called on only one narrow issue, once the gavel falls on the Convention, every single word, sentence, article and amendment is opened wide for change or deletion! Thus, if we Americans were absolutely "assured" that the only issue to be voted upon by a Constitutional Convention would be the issue of amending the Second Amendment so as to make it more difficult for criminals and people who are disturbed to get guns, once the Convention begins, every single word of our precious Constitution would suddenly be open to any and all changes the majority of the Conventioneers wanted to make. Since we know the delegates to any such Constitutional Convention would be "packed" with New World Order devotees, we can be 100% certain that the Constitution that comes out of such a convention would be one in which the Federal Government could take away our freedoms.

If you don't believe me on this planned Constitutional Convention deception, listen to Phyllis Schafly of Concerned Women For America. Phyllis was writing in her newsletter on December 2, 1985, as the call for a Constitutional Convention [ConCon] seemed likely to succeed. The pretense then was a Balanced Budget Amendment. Listen carefully to her warning.

"At a House Judiciary Committee hearing this year, Duke law professor Walter Dellinger called the Con Con drive "a classic case of constitutional bait-and-switch." Con Con advocates bait legislators with arguments for a BBA [Balanced Budget Amendment], then hook them into a different resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention, which is very different. The political activists pushing the Con Con speak with forked tongues about whether or not they actually want a Con Con to take place. Congressman Larry Craig (R-ID) supports the Con Con resolutions simply as a tactic, arguing that they will force Congress to knuckle down and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment." TNA / December 2, 1985 (p. 17)

Truly, Congressman Craig speaketh with forked tongue. He knows the plan. Once you get a ConCon called, for whatever narrow reason, you have the capability of forcing through any change the majority wants to make in our wonderful, precious Constitution. Even as our freedoms are being voted away, the Liberal Media will find a way to spin the situation so a majority of deluded, self-serving Americans will support the enslavement!


For decades, the American Constitution has been the document standing between the onrushing New World Order and the poor citizens of this country waiting to be enslaved. Satan would dearly love to see this document shredded and in the fire of his Hell. This relentless drive against guns may finally give our Illuminist leaders the victory they have always sought.

Let us now go back to the details of this horrid poll.

"Amending the Constitution -- Strong majorities across the board favor preserving the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and the press -- but preserving the Second Amendment freedom to own guns failed to draw a majority. Just 45% say the right to bear arms should be retained just as it is; 52% would modify or eliminate it." Once again, those Americans who want the Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and the Press retained had better hold firm against any effort to call a Constitutional Convention to amend "just" the Second Amendment. We will all wake up one morning to discover that all these rights have been taken away! Folks, this is an extremely serious matter, and one we must fight against at all costs, with no compromise. Ordinary Americans have got to be told clearly, boldly, and loudly of the inherent dangers involved in opening up a Constitutional Convention, no matter how "passionate" and how "compelling" the issue seems to be at the moment.

"Gun Control -- Seventy percent support new restrictions on gun ownership. When it comes to banning guns outright, twice as many people, 19%, believe most gun ownership should be banned as believe guns should be unregulated, 9%. Women, the poor and younger respondents were most likely to favor additional restrictions; those also are the groups most vulnerable to crime. 'It is too easy to get a gun, and they need to make it harder', says Angel Oakfor, 28, of Hawthorne, California.' "

I want to scream! The only reason this viewpoint is shared by millions of unthinking Americans is that this is the precise manner in which the New World Order Press in this country has framed the debate. When you own the vast majority of Mass Media in a country, you have the privilege of framing the debate in just the way that favors your side.

In these type of minds, the gun issue is this: "Access = Crime". Of course, this proposition is stupidly wrong! A gun is an inanimate object, and can be used for good purposes or evil, depending entirely upon the person wielding the gun. John R. Lott, Jr., writing in his book, "More Guns, Less Crime" showers the reader with statistics that demonstrate that, when people in a community have the right to bear concealed arms, the crime rate in that community drops in huge double digits, sometimes over 75%! You see, criminals want to steal but most definitely do not want to die in the process. Therefore, they will steer wide and clear from a community in which its citizens have the right to legally bear concealed weapons.

In Providence, R.I., just last week [July, 1999], an elderly man shot an intruder who was going to burglarize his apartment, seriously wounding the intruder. Police issued a statement that this shooting was in self-defense, and perfectly within the law.

I submit to you that, in any of the shootings that have so horrified this country in the past two decades, had anyone on the scene possessed a weapon, the outcome would have been far different. In fact, if the shooters knew they would likely be encountering "victims" who were armed, they would probably have not attacked in the first place. But, if they did attack anyway, their shooting would likely have been met with shooting from one or more civilians who were in the line of fire, and returning the fire. Most likely, the death toll would have been far less.

Therefore, the real statement people should be making is something like this: "Shooters find it far too easy to wound and kill civilians; we need to make it harder for shooters to fire their weapons with impunity." Most police departments are in favor of arming civilians, because they know their men cannot be everywhere at once, and most assuredly can not provide individual security for the population.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN VICTIMS FIRE BACK!

Let us listen to John Lott describe a situation where gunmen firing on innocent civilians were surprised by some of their intended victims firing back!

"Other examples suggest that more than just common crimes may be prevented by law-abiding citizens carrying concealed handguns. Referring to the July, 1984, massacre at a San Ysidro, California, McDonalds restaurant, Israeli criminologist Abraham Tennenbaum described what occurred at a crowded venue in Jerusalem some weeks before the Californian McDonald's massacre: three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed . The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them." [Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime", p. 6; Emphasis added]

Obviously, the fact that Israeli civilians were carrying concealed weapons, and immediately used them, prevented an even larger death toll. Had these gunmen encountered only unarmed civilians they might have been able to kill 50 or more people! How big would the outcry been then? But, no one in any Liberal Media ever reported this story from the aspect that the possession of guns had prevented a huge tragedy.

John Lott makes a very good observation: "Yet just because a law is passed to ban guns, it does not automatically follow that the total number of deaths will decline. Given the large stock of guns in the country, and given the difficulties the government faces in preventing other illegal items, such as drugs, from entering the country, it is not clear how successful the government would be in eliminating most guns."

Everyone who supports the modification or elimination of our Second Amendment of the Constitution is placing a huge -- and unwarranted -- faith in the Federal and State Governments to be able to enforce the new laws in such a way as to simultaneously disarm the criminal while offering individual protection to citizens that will now most assuredly be disarmed. Most police departments will admit -- privately at least -- that they cannot ever offer this kind of individual protection. Yet, criminals will know for sure that 100% of their victims will be disarmed.

Lott again states the problem a little more clearly. "This raises the important question of whether the law would primarily reduce the number of guns held by law-abiding citizens. How would such a law alter the relative balance of power between criminals and law-abiding citizens? Suppose it were possible to remove all guns. Other questions would arise. Would successfully removing guns discourage murders and other crimes because criminals would find knives and clubs poor alternatives? Would it be easier for criminals to prey on the weakest citizens, who would find it more difficult to defend themselves?"

Of course, we know the answer to that question, don't we? We know that the weakest, most vulnerable citizens would be the ones who would suffer the most if all guns were confiscated. How important is the gun in today's American society, in defensive situations? Lott estimates that guns are defensively used at least 760,000 times per year, and maybe as many as 3.6 million times [Ibid., p. 11]

The difficulty in obtaining accurate figures lies in two areas: 1) Most of defensive gun usage every year is simply showing the gun to a potential robber or assailant forcing them to flee; and 2) Most police departments do not record these defensive instances, because no law was broken -- the robber had no chance to rob and the murderer had no chance to murder. And, because the potential victim only had to wave the gun at the assailant, he or she had no need to explain anything to the police.

Therefore, if the Federal Government were to confiscate all guns, we just might see an increase of 3.6 million serious crimes every year. Every year, more little old ladies, elderly men, and men and women up and down the age spectrum will be more in danger of assault, robbery, and murder.

And, do you know something? Officials in our Federal and State governments know this, also. Then, why you ask, are they Hell-bent for gun confiscation?

History records that every single dictatorial government in history has disarmed the public , and then has gone to great lengths to keep them disarmed. Since the coming New World Order is planned to be the most dictatorial in all history, we should expect they would desperately want to disarm the American people first. I believe it highly likely our officials will wait until after the Rapture of the Church . They know that tens of millions of Born Again Christians world wide are also gun owners.

After the Rapture has taken these Christians out, their guns will simply be there for the taking. Further, since current laws have been requiring gun purchasers to fill out forms in which they list their address, government authorities will know exactly which address contains which guns, and how many guns that will be at each address. Now, you know the REAL reason for gun registration!

As I read this poll, that a majority of Americans [52%] now support modifying or eliminating the Second Amendment of our precious Constitution, I really and truly got a sense of how close we are to the End of the Age! The words of a New Age author ring in my ears:

"The Christ cannot appear until and unless a substantial minority of people have been conditioned to accept him."

A majority of Americans have been pre-conditioned in this critical matter of gun ownership and of amending the Constitution. We are really getting close.

Your welcome. Great article to help keep our attention focused on all possible scenarios. I am a decent chess player and try to think 4 to 5 plays ahead with all possible moves.

743646, Indeed. There can be no doubt that these are very clever people. But if they die in their sins, then they will find themselves in the traps that they have set for others.

Amo 9:2 Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:

for the night crowd.

Bump

With TOTUS now calling out his Chicago thugs to harrass law abiding citizens from exercising their 1st Amendment rights we really need more people to understand the motives of the want to be "supreme leader".

:pin this: please

Smilin' Irish Eyes,

Somehow by this time next year, I think that America will be a totally diffrent country.

pin it

Great article. Don't give away your rights, EVER!