Gun Control and the Hallmarks of Tyranny — A Reappraisal

GOPUSA, Independence Institute, Newsmax
Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Monday, January 21, 2013

Georg Hegel (1770-1831), the father of dialectical idealism, which Karl Marx transmogrified as Marxist dialectical materialism, lamented that what we do learn from history is that man does not learn its lessons! Despite what we have learned about the deleterious effects of draconian gun control, as always preceding tyranny and even mass killing of the people by their own government (democide) in the last bloody century, President Barack Obama and the usual suspects in the Democratic Party have resumed the beating of the drums calling for the resumption of authoritarian gun control measures. These freedom-curtailing measures punish the vast majority of lawful gun owners because of the crimes and shooting rampages committed by mentally ill persons who fell through the cracks of the mental health programs, or criminals and copycat killers who flouted our lenient criminal justice system and were enticed by the sirens of the popular culture of violence to achieve morbid celebrity status even in death!(1-2)

Hallmarks of Tyranny

As any student of history knows, loss of individual freedom and repression feature prominently in the development of totalitarian states. These features recur: First is the centralization and Gestapoempowerment of a national police force with a vast network of surveillance and informants to spy on the suspected population; second, the issuing of national identification cards for all citizens; third, civilian disarmament via gun registration, and licensing, followed by banning and confiscation of firearms.(3)

Thus gun control, along with loss of liberty and repression, necessarily and prominently features in the unfolding, authoritarian designs of a burgeoning police state. The empowerment of national police forces with vast surveillance capabilities and networks of informants* to spy on the population (not foreign enemies) is a necessity, and so we already have myriad agencies of enforcement from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Here we should pause and be reminded of the misadventures of the ATF, virGun Controltually a standing army which initiated open war against American citizens, responsible to a significant degree for both the tragedies at Ruby Ridge, Idaho (1992), and Waco, Texas (1993). More recently, this agency, which has been empowered to control illegal firearms in the U.S., instead was found to be deeply steeped in crime and corruption, responsible for the infamous Fast and Furious Operation selling illegal assault weapons to Mexican drug lords.

Historically once these mechanisms of oppression are firmly in place, persecution and elimination of suspects and political opponents follows, and every social, political and economic policy the state desires can then be implemented. This has happened with the National Communist DictatorsSocialists in Nazi Germany, fascist states such as Italy under Mussolini, and communist powers such as the former Soviet Union (and its satellites behind the Iron Curtain) and Red China.(4-5) It is therefore astonishing and disturbing that Americans are now, once again, being assailed by President Obama with an avalanche of dangerous presidential decrees leading to the construction of the type of freedom-eroding scaffold which is anathema to the individual liberties our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us as responsible citizens capable of self-governance.

Construction of this scaffold reaching up to an authoritarian tower is the case with several bills that are being re-introduced in Congress requiring that all "qualifying firearms" in the hands of law-abiding citizens be registered. And the usual politicians are involved: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

Gun Registration and Tyranny

These gun control proposals would eventually require that all persons be fingerprinted, licensed with passport-size photographs, and forced to reveal certain personal information as conditions for licensure. Registration lists would make it easy for municipal, state, or even the federal government to seize the registered firearms, once they are subsequently banned. The Obama and Bidenre-introduced Assault Weapons ban will include over 50% of all guns already lawfully possessed by Americans. Moreover, Obama has bypassed and gone over the authority of Congress by ordering the CDC to repudiate the congressional gun violence research ban issued in 1996. Such research was shown by numerous investigators to be politicized, result-oriented research that could only be characterized as junk science.(4)(6-7) Obama has now even taken the opportunity to encourage physicians to ask their patients about gun ownership and use them as snitches for the government!(8)

Legislation proposed by Senator Feinstein coming down the pipe mandates that gun owners register their firearms (9), in essence establishing, through the back door, a national gun registry, as was the case in Canada.

And the Canadian experience itself should be instructive. Lorne Gunter, writing in the Edmonton Journal as early as October 13, 2000, revealed that the Canadian Outreach program to register all gun owners was failing. The result and cost of Canada gun registrationthis Outreach campaign not only failed then to bring in the expected 1.4 million gun owners (to only one-third of that, 486,000), but it also exceeded the projected price tag many times over.  By December 2002, the Canadian registry boondoggle was already costing nearly $1 billion. The cost has escalated well beyond the $1 billion mark and has proven to be a complete failure.(10)

Americans, and now Canadians, have pointed out not only its excessive cost and ineffectiveness but also the fact that rather than helping track criminals and their guns, as claimed, registration of firearms is dangerous to the liberties of citizens, and as we shall see, counterproductive against criminals.

Unbeknownst to many Americans, who having seen and experienced mostly the goodness of America, gun registration is the gateway to civilian disarmament, which often precedes genocide. In the monumental book Lethal Laws, published by Jews for the Preservation of Lethal Laws Dust JacketFirearm Ownership, we learn that authoritarian governments that conducted genocide and mass killings of their own populations, first disarmed their citizens. The recipe for accomplishing this goal went as follows: demonization of guns, registration, then banning and confiscation, and finally total civilian disarmament.(11)

Enslavement of the people then followed with limited resistance, as was the case in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba and other totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Frequently, when presented with these deadly chronicles and the perilous historic sequence — namely, that gun registration is followed by banning, confiscation, civilian disarmament and, ultimately, by authoritarianism — naive Americans opine that it cannot happen here.

As to the dangers of licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, they frequently retort, "If you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to fear!" Followed by, "I see nothing wrong with gun registration because we have to do something; there are just too many guns out there that fall into the wrong hands." This is not only a naïve but also a dangerous attitude because ATF raid on American homegovernments have a penchant to accrue power at the expense of the liberties of individual citizens. Civilian disarmament is not only dangerous to one's personal liberty but also counterproductive in achieving collective safety.

The danger to a disarmed population has been further attested by two other great books. One is University of Hawaii professor R.J. Rummel's Death by Government (1994). The second book is The Black Book of Communism (1999) edited by Stéphane Courtois. These books make it clear authoritarianism and totalitarianism are dangerous to the health of humanity. During the 20th century, an excess of 100 million people were killed by their own governments bent on destroying liberty and building socialism and collectivism.(4-5)

Gun Registration and the Law

Another fact Americans need to understand is that registration is directed to law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Not only do convicted criminals by definition fail to obey the law, but they are also constitutionally protected against any registration requirement. In Haynes v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against forced self-incrimination. In other words, the court said that if someone "realistically can expect that registration [of a firearm] will substantially increasGun registratione the likelihood of his prosecution," the registration requirement is unconstitutional.

Astonishingly as it may sound, some courts have ruled that registration of firearms only applies to lawful citizens, not to felons. This has been pointed out by legal scholar Don B. Kates mentioning, for example, the Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) decision. Does exemption of felons from gun registration sound irrational? It certainly does! Were gun registration to be implemented in the United States, criminals and felons could very well not be expected to register their weapons, since they are already felons proscribed from legally owning firearms. Requiring them to register their guns, some courts may opine, would necessarily incriminate them, and this would violate their Fifth Amendment rights.(12)

In Conclusion

As Edmund Burke that champion of British liberty once orated, “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Americans must therefore remain informed and vigilant to preserve their traditional and constitutional liberties and prevent enactment of gun control legislation rooted in passion and emotionalism and that impacts them and not the criminals. Government efforts should be directed against criminals and felons, and should best be directed towards crime control rather than gun control.

Governments that trust their citizens with guns are governments that sustain and affirm individual freedom because as Thomas Jefferson, affirmed, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground." Indeed, governments that do not trust their citizens with firearms tend to be despotic and tyrannical. And as our history of Prohibition in the 1920s has shown, Americans obey just and moral laws but disobey or flout capricious and tyrannical laws.

Finally, let’s heed the admonition of the English philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), who was greatly admired by the American Founding Fathers, who opined, "I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty would not when he had me in his Power take away everything else."


* These informants are often unreliable ruffians and underworld elements willing to be snitches, so they can be at liberty to commit common, non-political crimes. In the Soviet police state and the gulag, these valuable criminal informants were referred to as "socially friendly elements" by the guards and police.


1. Faria MA Jr. Mass shootings and the mental health — At what cost? GOPUSA, December 17, 2012.

2. Faria MA Jr. Shooting rampages, mental health, and the sensationalization of violence. Surg Neurol Int 2013;4:16.

3. This essay expounds and updates my previous article on the subject: Faria MA Jr. National gun Registration: The Road to Tyranny. The Freeman, March 1, 2001.

4. Faria MA Jr. America guns and freedom: Part 1 — A recapitulation of liberty. Surg Neurol Int 2012.

5. Faria MA Jr. America, guns and freedom: Part II — An international perspective. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3:135.

6. Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, Cassem EH. Guns and public health: Epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda? Tennessee Law Review 1995;62:513‑96.

7. Wheeler T. Public Health Gun Control: A Brief History — Part 1. DRGO News, Januray 3, 2013.

8. Wheeler T. Obama directs his executive power at American gun owners. National Review Online, January 16, 2013.

9. Feinstein goes for broke with new gun-ban bill. NRA-ILA, December 27, 2012.

10. Gunter L. Shot in the foot by their gun registry: Auditor general confirms Liberal boondoggle has cost us at least $1B. Edmonton Journal, December 4, 2002, p.A18.

11. Simkin J, Zelman A, Rice A. Lethal Laws. Milwaukee, WI, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, 1994. Available from:

12. Kates DB. Firearms and Violence — Issues of Public Policy. San Francisco, CA, Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, 1984, pp. 14-22.

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. is Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine. He is an Associate Editor in Chief and World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI), and an Ex-member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002-05; Former Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002). Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is

Copyright ©2013 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

An edited version of this article (without illustrations) also appeared in GOPUSA on January 21, 2013. An abbreviated version of this article was also published in the Macon Telegraph on Sunday, February 10, 2013.

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Gun Control and the Hallmarks of Tyranny — A Reappraisal. Hacienda Publishing. January 21, 2013. Available from:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (19 votes)
Comments on this post

Nothing to hide

It has been said by one high in the field of Constitutional law that in today's United States, so many laws have been put on the books that virtually everyone is guilty of some violation of these laws, statutes or bureaucratic rules and therefore prosecution is just a matter of the will of those who rule. Likewise, in todays world that will is highly political and is used by those in power to punish or eradicated those who resist that power. One should also keep in mind that millions of pages of bureaucratic statutes, which have the full force of the law, exist and more are being added every minute of every day, all beyond the purview of the public. Ignorance of the law, we are told, is no excuse. It was James Fenimore Cooper who observed in his book the American Democrat (1838) that no small group of men can dominate society in an oppressive manner except that they were given that power by the majority. Those who would look the other way when one of the most important parts of our Constitution is violated, that is the protection of our private papers and correspondences, are inviting even greater abuses of power that will one day even dawn upon such stuporous individuals as those who make such foolish statements. The very reason we have a system that requires a court order to invade one's private domain in any way is to protect us from nefarious authorities who wish to search our persons and property in a effort to find some reason to charge us with a crime. The political implications, as I stated, are enormous and devastating to liberty. Such court orders must specifically state what is being sought in the search and why. Many forms of evidence have been thrown out of court proceedings based on violations of this critical procedure. While criminals have been freed because of this so-called "technicality" it is a principle that is essential to liberty. Those who make such foolish statement as "I have nothing to hide", should carefully study the experiences of those who have lived in societies in which these protections do not exist.

Russell L. Blaylock, MD

If you don't have anything to hide...

The following letter appeared in the MT today: "Privacy"

In response to Geraldine Parker’s essay on privacy, I must ask this. What is she trying to hide? What is she afraid of? What has she done? It sounds like the person who told us that the OnStar in our cars can be used to track us. So what? Does that mean they know when I went to Sears?
Parker asked, “Doesn’t the Fourth Amendment guarantee us privacy?” No, I don’t see that it does. Privacy is not mentioned anywhere in the 52 words of the amendment...

One of her questions strikes me as incongruous: “Who wants his own face on a police computer when he has done nothing wrong?” My answer is, who cares? If you have done nothing wrong, no harm done. Now our freedoms have been taken away? Really, please list all of the freedoms you have lost. Also please list all of the programs that spend more and more of our money needlessly. Then maybe you will be listened to. Otherwise your complaint means nothing. --Jim Huber, Centerville, GA.

MAF: Yes, crime is rampant, but regarding general surveillance of the population with cameras, police searches and informants, interrogation by police without probable cause, etc., etc...Citizens cannot give carte blanche to the State. History says lethal naïveté! to those who crow, not always with high intellect or wisdom: "If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear!"

I say, Really! Mr. Huber (and to all like-minded trusting citizens). Even if Ms Parker was hysterical and it sounds as if she was, the issue is too important to laugh it up! Even paranoids have been known to be correct from time to time. Read the article above, and if you still doubt, continue below with your fellow readers/writers' comments:

Mike Ganas: The "if you have nothing to hide" argument is b.s. It forces the person who takes a position in favor of the Fourth Amendment to defend themselves instead of their position.

No, the Fourth Amendment doesn't use the word 'privacy.' However what it does say is that we have the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Key word there is unreasonable. Therefore it does lead a reasonable person to come away from reading it with the belief that yes there is a protection of privacy there.

Bosque Flores: We do have certain rights to privacy, but once we hit the public streets, so to speak, we waive a certain amount of our privacy. Do I like the idea of always being watched? Not so much. But, ask me if I like the idea of those committing crimes being watched? Then it becomes a much different answer. Recently three people in Mississippi were convicted of a hate crime. What led to their initial arrest was images captured by surveillance cameras.

Why do I think that those who find being watched an invasion of privacy cheer when criminals are caught by that same privacy being "violated."

Bob White: Jim Huber, you should look up the following quote by Benjamin Franklin : ”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

Also you statement " “Who wants his own face on a police computer when he has done nothing wrong?” My answer is, who cares? If you have done nothing wrong, no harm done." , proves you are a moral coward unwilling to stand up for your rights that our ancestors fought and died for.

You asked the question " What rights have we lost?" The Patriot Act and the War on Drugs have gutted the 4th Amendment. Our government and law enforcement monitor our phone calls, internet, mail, what books you read, all without a warrant signed by a judge. Road blocks take place daily under which we can be searched without a warrant. Under he " sneak and peek " provision of the Patriot Act, our homes can be searched without our even knowing about it.
It's easy to see Mr. Huber that you are one of the sheep who won't even bleat as you are led to be fleeced or slaughtered.

Jefferson Thomas: "If you are not guilty of breaking the law or a criminal, why get all excited about your police just doing their jobs more efficiently?"-- Frank Gadbois. Who knew Frank was so pro-police?

MAF: And even my fellow citizens above may be too trusting. As a general rule I trust local and state police, who are closer to the local communities, but distrust federal forces that are a bit farther from the control of the local citizens and thus more likely to go rogue, the ATF being a good example. DEA may not be too far behind. So authoritarians & collectivists, like our local socialist Frank Gadbois, sometimes must make a stark choice, as to defend police tactics, even if that means supporting the local police, they normally resent and denigrate. But these collectivist authoritarians always strategically support Big Brother over the individual at the federal level.

As to the loss of freedom and the loss of money in needless programs, I invite you to read the two articles below:

Obama's Mid-term (Spring 2014) Report Card — Protecting the Personal Freedom of Americans!

A Brief History of Socialism in America

Gun registration — prelude to arrest, confiscation!

MILLER: Gun re-registration begins in D.C., may lead to arrest and confiscation

First law in U.S. to require renewal with fingerprints and fees By Emily Miller, The Washington Times, Jan 1, 2014

For the first time in the United States, a citizen who has legally registered a gun will have to submit to a renewal process. The consequences of not knowing about this new law or missing the specific 60-day window are dire.

Starting on Jan. 2, every single D.C. resident who has registered a firearm since 1976 must go to police headquarters to pay a $48 fee and be photographed and fingerprinted. The Metropolitan Police Department estimates there are at least 30,000 registered gun owners.

If the registrant does not go to the police station within three months after a set time frame, the registration is revoked. That citizen is then in possession of an unregistered firearm, which is a felony that carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.
The gun itself is put into a category of weapons that can never be registered, just as though it were a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun.

The city has not made clear how it will enforce the law, but the police are in possession of all registrants’ home addresses so confiscation and arrests would be simple.
The police are notifying registrants by mail that they have to come to the station on the set schedule. Also, the department took out a $550 advertisement in The Washington Times to run on Monday. The required public notice is not being printed in any other newspaper or media outlet.

The three-year expiration date is supposed to uncover if a gun owner does something that makes him suddenly a danger to society, such as committing a felony, becoming a drug addict or being involuntarily committed to a mental hospital...

Gun control via fiat!

Obama Proposes Massive Gun Ban by Regulation Fiat

GOA prepares legislation to block implementation

In a “Friday media dump” designed to conceal its actions by releasing them after the press has left town, the Obama administration last week announced its intention to push two regulations which would massively expand the federal gun bans imposed on Americans.


The first proposal -- from HHS -- would effectively say that federal health privacy laws (HIPAA) do not apply to the Second Amendment.

This isn’t the first time Obama has stuck his leering eyeballs into Americans’ medical records and private affairs.  From its Orwellian government database on Americans’ health records to its voracious seizure of Americans’ phone records, the Obama administration can’t trample our personal privacy fast enough.
But HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ efforts to turn over personal mental health information to the government’s gun ban blacklist (NICS) is particularly loathsome.  

Not to be outdone in the Sebelius/Holder “Mutt and Jeff act,” Attorney General Eric Holder -- currently being pursued for contempt of Congress -- intends to seize guns from persons subject to “outpatient commitments (even without a court order) (and) ... someone (deemed by some bureaucrat to be) lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane...”

More than 150,000 law-abiding veterans have already lost their constitutional rights -- with no due process whatsoever -- because they consulted a VA therapist about a traumatic incident in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Balkans.
Under these new regulations, tens of millions of police and firemen with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- or people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder -- could lose their constitutional rights without any court order, merely because they sought a benefit under a federal program.   

And you want to know the hidden agenda behind DOJ’s “commitment” language?  We have a member in a rabidly anti-gun state.  Many years ago, he was picked up by police and, without the approval of any court, sent to a mental facility overnight for “observation.”  The mental facility found no mental problems and promptly released him.
However, many years later, as a result of that state’s anti-gun crackdown (which Holder is now trying to emulate), his name has been sent to the NICS system.  He has lost his constitutional rights, and it will cost him tens of thousands of dollars (which he does not have) to get them back.

We believe this is unlawful under current law.  But it will probably not be unlawful by the end of Holder’s regulatory proceedings.

What does Sebelius have to say about this?  Well, she is surprisingly flip:  “There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS, and some states are currently under-reporting or not reporting certain information to the NICS at all.”

And this from the White House:  “...when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide.”

But herein lies the problem:  When Americans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder realize that nothing they say to their therapist is really confidential, they're not going to be seeking treatment for very long...

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151 703-321-8585

Breaking Senate filibuster rules

Majoritarian tyranny

WASHINGTON, AP, November 21, 2013
"The Democrat majority in the Senate on Thursday pushed through a major rules change, one that curbs the power of the Republican minority to block President Barack Obama's nominations for high-level judgeships and cabinet and agency officials. The move was certain to only deepen the partisan gridlock that has virtually ended passage of legislation.

"Infuriated over repeated Republican blocks of Obama candidates for critical judgeships, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took the dramatic step, calling it 'simple fairness,' because the change would work in Republicans' favor whenever they regain the White House and a Senate majority.

"Current Senate rules allowed any one member of the chamber to block a president's nominations unless 60 of the 100 Senators vote to move forward with the nomination. The 60-vote threshold has proven difficult for Democrats to assemble given they hold only a 55-45 edge over the Republicans in a hyper-partisan political climate and stalemated Congress.

"Known as the 'nuclear option,' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the rules change would help break partisan gridlock that has sent voter approval of Congress to record lows. He forced a vote on requiring only 51 votes to end the tactic, known as a filibuster. The change would not end the 60-vote threshold for overcoming blocking action for Supreme Court nominees or legislation.
"The change is the most far-reaching to filibuster rules since 1975, when a two-thirds requirement for cutting off filibusters against legislation and all nominations was eased to today's three-fifths, or 60-vote, level. It wouldNuclear Option make it harder for the opposition party to block presidential appointments...."

The 'Nuclear option' change that took place in the Senate is a travesty of constitutional prerogative and the rule of law: Instead of 60 votes to break a filibuster, it's now 51 votes (a simple majority).

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said that unprecedented obstruction in the Senate made the change necessary. The Republicans correctly say the long standing Senate rules have been trampled. Indeed it is a power grab that reflects the Democrats thirst for power. Both Harry Reid (D- Nevada) and Barack Obama as Senator of Illinois (D- Illinois) had opposed the change a few years ago when the Democrats were in the minority status in the Senate. Republicans say they will "regret" the change. Liberty, though, has been given short shrift and tyranny advances! — MAF

GOA on Legislation

Urgent message from GOA on pending legislation:

Harry Reid Buys Anti-gun Votes from his"Secret Room"
This battle is ObamaCare II 

“The most annoying thing is the phone calls.” - a Senior Senate Staffer commenting on the effectiveness of thousands of phone calls pouring into their offices (June 21, 2013)
URGENT ACTION:  A key vote in the Senate will be occurring later today or tomorrow morning.  Please call your Senators at 202-224-3121 to register your opinion, and if you live in a state with two anti-gun Senators, then use the contact list below to call Senators who are on the fence. Urge your pro-gun friends and family to do the same.
Making them “An offer they can’t refuse.”

Thursday night last week was like a scene from the Godfather.

One by one, senators shuffled into Harry Reid's "secret room" in the Capitol, and each one (figuratively) kissed his ring and (again, figuratively) received his payment from Reid's stack of bills.

And, by the end of the night, Reid had presumably bought enough votes to pass his anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.

Things haven't changed a bit from ObamaCare.  Same secret room.  Same procession of supplicants.  Same massive secret bill, revealed at the very same moment Reid filed his motion to cut off debate.  Same morally challenged senators who were more than willing to have their votes bought.

Either later today or tomorrow morning, the Senate will vote on whether to cut off all debate on the massive amendment which didn't exist until Friday morning.

There are two things to remember:  The liberal (and demonstrably partisan) Congressional Budget Office looked at the long fences, copious border agents, and Orwellian E-Verify in the base bill -- and decided it would have little impact on illegal immigration, reducing it by only 25%.  This, in exchange for 8,000,000 new, largely anti-gun voters.

If Hoeven, Corker, and Schumer claim that their "super-secret probation" amendment (fences, agents, e-verify) will have any more of an impact, let's get a CBO estimate of that.

Second, the one thing Schumer has consistently refused to do is to condition his 8,000,000 new Democratic voters on the statistically demonstrable success of border security.  What does that tell you?

It says this bill is more about turning this country blue than it is about securing the border...

To find out if your senators is a fence sitter, and how to communicate with your senator —check on the GOA website:

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151703-321-8585


From GOA:

Gun Owners Score Big in the Senate: Sell-out amendment falls three votes short of Schumer’s goal of 70. Sometimes victory is relative. But that doesn't make it any less definitive.

Today, beginning at 5:30 pm (EST), only 67 Senators -- three short of Chuck Schumer’s 70-vote target -- voted to shut off debate on the anti-gun Hoeven-Corker-Leahy amnesty amendment. It is noteworthy that only 15 Republicans voted for cloture (to end debate), while an overwhelming majority of GOP Senators voted against it (that is, most Republicans wanted to keep the filibuster in place).

The Chuck Schumers of the world did everything in their power to get the 70-vote threshold which they had predicted -- and which became a floor for the number of votes necessary in order for anti-gunners to avoid embarrassment.

They gave Nevada Senators an unending open-ended sky's-the-limit program to tout tourism in Las Vegas.

They gave Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders $1.5 billion in social spending in order to buy his vote.

And so it went. One Senator after another after another secured irrelevant buy-out amendments as the price for selling out. It was ObamaCare 2.0.

But that wasn't enough.

By falling short of their 70-vote goal, Schumer & Co. in effect admitted that the bill would limp out of the Senate without any momentum going into the House. Coupled with our successful efforts to revitalize the Hastert Rule in the House, anti-gun immigration reform is on track to being dead for the year because House Speaker Boehner has said he will not pass it with largely Democratic support. Does that mean we can declare victory and go home? No. As usual, you don't pop the cork until they bang the gavel. You keep fighting...

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151703-321-8585

Stunning Victory for gun owners!

From GOA: "We Won a Stunning Victory Today!

“Schumer’s spokesman Brian Fallon took note of Gun Owners of America’s role in the debate, tweeting a link to the [New York] Times profile and saying the group ‘is making deal on even background checks extremely hard.’” - TPM Media, “Democrats Blame Gun Owners of America for Gun Control Setback,” April 8, 2013

"...Here are the highlights of what happened today:

(1) The most important vote was the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer national gun registry proposal. With 60 votes needed for passage, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer amendment was shot down by a vote of 54-46. GOA and NRA strongly opposed the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer amendment. But we were surprised to see that another gun group - not only said they supported the Toomey language, but - said they helped write the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer text. Thankfully, their support for this gun control language was not enough to get it passed.

"(2) The Cornyn-Vitter-Thune amendment - pushed hard by Gun Owners of America - received a 57-43 vote (so we fell three votes short since 60 were needed). This provision would have allowed concealed carry holders and persons in constitutional carry states to carry nationwide. The overwhelming vote on this amendment sets the stage for bringing it up again and again on must-pass legislation.

"(3) As predicted, the Feinstein gun ban lost by a vote of 40-60 - falling far short of a majority - and the magazine ban lost by a vote of 46-54.
Today is a day to celebrate! We thank God for all of you and for all the Help that we have received in this long struggle to stop infringements of our liberties.
Here’s what is still left for tomorrow.

"Harry Reid’s bill (S. 649) is still on the floor of the Senate, and there are two scheduled votes that will take place tomorrow. Eventually, the Senate will vote on whether to end debate on the bill (known as cloture), but that vote won’t necessarily take place tomorrow. The Senate will need 60 votes to end debate, but if they can’t reach that threshold, the bill effectively dies.

"So GOA is telling Senators to vote AGAINST cloture on the bill, whenever that vote comes..."

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151 pH.703-321-8585

Tribute to the "Iron Lady"!

A great champion of freedom, Ex-British Prime Minister Baroness Margaret Thatcher has died at age 87. She had been the greatest British Prime Minister since Winston Churchill, who helped bring down the Nazis as the greatest leader of World War II. Along with U.S. President Ronald Reagan, PM Margaret Thatcher, who the Soviets called the Iron Lady, was instrumental in bringing down the Evil Empire — without World War III!— MAF

From the BBC News April 8, 2013 (abstracted): "Ex-Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher dies, aged 87

Thatcher "Former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher (1925-2013) has died "peacefully" at the age of 87 after suffering a stroke while staying at the Ritz hotel in central London.

David Cameron called her a 'great Briton' and the Queen spoke of her sadness at the death.

"Lady Thatcher was Conservative prime minister from 1979 to 1990. She was the first woman to hold the role. 
She will not have a state funeral but will be accorded the same status as Princess Diana and the Queen Mother. 
The ceremony, with full military honours, will take place at London's St Paul's Cathedral. The union jack above Number 10 Downing Street has been lowered to half-mast...

"Her government privatised several state-owned industries and was involved in a year-long stand-off with unions during the Miners'Strike of 1984-5. She was also in power when the UK fought a war following Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982.

"Lady Thatcher survived an assassination attempt in 1984, when the IRA bombed the Brighton Grand Hotel, where she was staying for the Conservative Party's annual conference. 
During her later years in office she became increasingly associated with Euroscepticism. She is also seen as one of the key movers behind the fall of communism in eastern Europe.

"She stood down in 1990 after she failed to beat Michael Heseltine by enough votes to prevent his leadership challenge going into a second round...

"Having been education secretary, she successfully challenged former prime minister Edward Heath for her party's leadership in 1975 and won general elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987.

"Lady Thatcher, who retired from public speaking in 2002, had suffered poor health for several years. Her husband Denis died in 2003. She had been staying at the Ritz hotel since being discharged from hospital at the end of last year."

From the GOA to NRA!

GOA to NRA Leadership: "Please Urge Senators to Support the Paul-Cruz-Lee Filibuster in the U.S. Senate

"We are going into a battle which will determine the future of gun control for the next decade - and perhaps for the rest of our lifetime.

"Here's the status: On or around April 8, Harry Reid will move to proceed to S. 649. That "base bill" contains the Veterans Gun Ban, which could send you to prison for 15 years if you sell a gun to a veteran, without realizing he has PTSD. The bill will also contain the Schumer version of Universal Gun Registries.
S. 649 does not have the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster on final passage. However, if Reid can get the motion to proceed adopted - and get on the bill itself - he will play let's-make-a-deal and use bribes and kickbacks to buy the 60 votes he needs.

"In particular, Reid and Schumer will probably try to prune the universal registry bill to buy off the vote of Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn. They may pretend to prohibit record keeping by the FBI, but you can bet their "compromise" will contain a big, juicy loophole.

"In addition, they may pare it back to gun shows and internet sales, although the most recent "gun show" bill we have seen would effectively ban gun shows.
The media has been reporting that the NRA leadership is working with West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin to craft these compromises, although NRA vehemently denies it.

"As a result of anti-gun rules changes, there are two ways to proceed to a bill in the Senate. One requires 60 votes, which we have. The second requires 50 votes (plus Biden), but requires Reid to give up some of his control of the floor.
The point is this: Our efforts will be tremendously helped if the NRA leadership publicly calls on Senators to oppose the motion to proceed, opposes cloture on the motion to proceed, and scores both votes.

"If it does this, the motion to proceed will die. Reid will be unable to move to any gun control legislation. Gun control will die.

"We believe that, because of the strength and fervor of our membership, we are very close to winning this battle - but it would be so much easier if we were both singing off the same page.

"ACTION: If, you are an NRA member, contact them. Urge them to join with us in supporting the Paul-Cruz-Lee filibuster. That means they should tell Senators to oppose the motion to proceed to any gun control vehicle, and to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to any gun control vehicle."


Filibuster vs cloture

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) 28th President

"March 8, 1917: Cloture Rule (1878-1920)

"Woodrow Wilson considered himself an expert on Congress—the subject of his 1884 doctoral dissertation. When he became president in 1913, he announced his plans to be a legislator-in-chief and requested that the President’s Room in the Capitol be made ready for his weekly consultations with committee chairmen.  For a few months, Wilson kept to that plan.  Soon, however, traditional legislative-executive branch antagonisms began to tarnish his optimism. After passing major tariff, trade, and banking legislation in the first two years of his administration, Congress slowed its pace.

"By 1915, the Senate had become a breeding ground for filibusters.  In the final weeks of the Congress that ended on March 4, one administration measure related to the war in Europe tied the Senate up for 33 days and blocked passage of three major appropriations bills.  Two years later, as pressure increased for American entry into that war, a 23-day, end-of-session filibuster against the president’s proposal to arm merchant ships also failed, taking with it much other essential legislation.  For the previous 40 years, efforts in the Senate to pass a debate-limiting rule had come to nothing.  Now, in the wartime crisis environment, President Wilson lost his patience.
Decades earlier, he had written in his doctoral dissertation, 'It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees.'

"On March 4, 1917, as the 64th Congress expired without completing its work, Wilson held a decidedly different view.  Calling the situation unparalleled, he stormed that the “Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action.  A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.”  The Senate, he demanded, must adopt a cloture rule.
"On March 8, 1917, in a specially called session of the 65th Congress, the Senate agreed to a rule that essentially preserved its tradition of unlimited debate.  The rule required a two-thirds majority to end debate and permitted each member to speak for an additional hour after that before voting on final passage.  Over the next 46 years, the Senate managed to invoke cloture on only five occasions."

Reference: U.S. Congress.The Senate, 1789-1989, Vol. 2, by Robert C. Byrd. 100th Cong., 1st sess., 1991. S. Doc.100-20. From the U.S Senate, Art and History, Historical Minutes, the Cloture Rule.

Outstanding analysis!

Some of the responses to this article upon publication in the Macon Telegraph on Feb 10, 2013

Sparky: "Outstanding analysis.  Thank you, Dr. Faria, for your thoughts.How many citizens have read John Locke and fully appreciate the importance of his ideas to the Founders?"

uneed: "Thank you Dr. Faria for your continued great articles and attempts at educating by using History. As we know so many times it has a sneaky way of repeating itself. And we are smack dab in the middle of witnessing just that. Astounding how quickly the Killer of Nations has been able to recruit so many Zombies ."

jgw12345: "Excellent article and a crystal clear argument against gun control."

Dr Faria replies: Thank you so much Sparky. John Locke was an outstanding thinker, philosopher, and scientist. He was a physician and lived in Charleston, South Carolina, for a while. He gave up medicine and wealth for political philosophy. He is one of the earliest founders of classical liberalism, which today is conservatism. He influenced our political founders, as well as philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Thank you for your kindness and feedback!

And thank you so much, uneed. We have to do what we can to save this nation, as we teeter at the edge of national suicide by ignorance —or design. History is a great teacher for those who pay attention and do their own thinking!

Gun Control

Dr. Faria,
Thank you for your scholarly article on gun control! Unlike the media that promulgates gun control under the guise of ending violence, you educate the reader on what will occur if our government is allowed to take away our Second Amendment rights. Perhaps, President Obama should read the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story 1840, "One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."


Thank you, Chowder 3, for your kindness. As Thomas Payne once wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls... Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

And Your quote by Joseph Story, is exquisite, and like a picture, it is worth a thousand words! — MAF

Gun Registration in Germany

GOA on the National Gun Registry in Germany (Jan 22, 2013)

Will the U.S. Follow Germany's Example?
The country that invented Nazism sets up national gun registry
Something very instructive just happened in Germany.
Germany just implemented "a vast registry that details every legal gun owner in the country, along with information about all of their firearms."
They did this, based on records that, in some cases, "were kept on index cards across what used to be 551 separate local registries."  
Thus, with everyone's name already on an index card (read:  4473 forms) in what was effectively a "universal background check," it was a small step to a national gun registry. 
Not surprisingly, "gun rights groups" in Germany raised no real opposition.  "We are used to it," said one.
Now, in the words of The Washington Post:
If they are preparing a raid on a house, they can scout the address in the database to be better prepared for what weapons might lie within.  Before the database, they could only guess at overall numbers, and finding the weapons registered to a certain address had been laborious...
We know that gun confiscation is the ultimate endgame for many of the gun grabbers on the Left.  Consider just a few, recent well-known cases:
"Confiscation could be an option," declared New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in a radio interview (December 27, 2012).
"We cannot have big guns out here," said Iowa Rep. Dan Muhlbauer. "Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them." (Interview with the Iowa Daily Times Herald, December 19, 2012.)
"No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of the New Orleans police, right before several law-enforcement agencies began confiscating the firearms of lawful gun owners in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (2005).
The task of confiscating guns is much easier when the government has a registration list.  And that is the number one reason gun owners should oppose background checks, because they give federal bureaucrats the framework for a national registration system...

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151