Law Enforcement Agency’s Big Announcement Reveals Obama’s 2nd Amendment Attacks Have Backfired Big Time

Law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. have frequently criticized the Obama administration for its perceived efforts to restrict the scope of the Second Amendment. According to recent data compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, gun-toting Americans have responded to the ostensible slight by purchasing more guns than they did during the previous administration.

While about 4.5 million firearms were manufactured in 2007, the last full year of George W. Bush’s second term, gun sales during the latest year for which figures are available showed a more than three-fold increase. In fact, roughly the same number of handguns was produced in 2013 as all firearms combined during 2007.

In all, about 13.8 million guns were manufactured in 2013. Broken down by types of weapon, handguns made up the largest portion with about 4.4 million new firearms produced. Rifles were close behind, with gunsmiths adding approximately 3.9 million new weapons. About 1.2 million shotguns were also produced during the year.

Eric Pratt, Second Amendment activist and spokesman for Gun Owners of America, analyzed the recent ATF report, concluding it solidifies Obama’s status as “Gun Salesman of the Decade.”

He concluded that concerned gun owners are “rushing to buy firearms because they’re afraid that Obama will take away their Second Amendment rights.”

The National Rifle Association’s Jennifer Baker agreed, noting that “it’s not shocking people are frightened and want to protect themselves.”

Of Obama, she said he will “stop at nothing to strip people of their constitutional rights to self-protection.”

Is an increase in firearms manufacturing a good sign for America? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

A Tale Of 2 Shootings: Gun Control Is Killing The US

In the wake of the Lafayette, Louisiana, Grand Theater movie theater shooting, the media has made much ado about the President’s “prediction” that less gun control laws would lead to more shootings.

But in reality, it was the strict gun control laws that made the Louisiana shooting possible, according to Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America, who gives these three reasons:

Number one: The perpetrator chose to commit his crime in a gun free zone. The Grand Theater chain does NOT allow concealed firearms on its premises — even by lawfully permitted concealed carry holders, hindering law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and others.

Number two: The shooter was already a prohibited purchaser because of mental health issues–yet that did not physically prevent him from acquiring firearms.

Number three: The gunman had been denied a concealed carry permit years ago–yet he still managed to illegally carry a gun.

Bottom line: Gun control failed to protect honest civilians in Lafayette, Louisiana.

Contrast the Louisiana theater shooting to one that occurred one year earlier.

On July 24, 2014, a nutcase walked into a Darby, Pennsylvania, hospital, intent on killing as many people as possible.

But the gunman hadn’t counted on the fact that his #1 intended target — his doctor — had defied the hospital’s “no guns allowed” policy and was carrying a gun of his own.

Dr. Lee Silverman is a lawful permit holder who regularly carries a handgun. Having come under fire, he crouched behind a desk and shot back, hitting the perpetrator three times in the mid-section.

Even though the bad guy was able to murder one person, authorities credited Dr. Silverman with halting a mass shooting in progress.

Guns in good people’s hands are saving lives. But the President’s approach — which denies guns to law-abiding citizens — prevents potential victims from bringing mass shootings to an abrupt end.

For more information on guns and gun rights, visit the web site of Gun Owners of America, the nation’s second largest gun organization, representing more than one million gun owners, at:

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

VA Declaring Veterans And Social Security Recipients Incompetent, Taking Their Weapons

First, it was returning veterans who received letters from the Veterans’ Administration which stated that they were incompetent and no longer could legally own weapons.

The same plan is now in the works for recipients of Social Security, according to the Los Angeles Times. The veterans have been declared incompetent without any legal hearing, since the declaration has been made for any so-called “disabled” veteran, whether the disability is mental or physical as determined by Obama cronies.

Veterans receiving the letter are given 60 days to prove they are “competent” and able to handle their own affairs. This is a direct violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution, since the burden of proof in such cases should be on the government. But this is the new ObamaNation.

Many of the veterans have neither been given hearings nor examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist.Then-Attorney General Eric Holder decided that anyone who works for the VA can declare veterans incompetent for any reason, including having their bills paid automatically out of their bank accounts. You heard that right: auto-payments. And veterans who question this ruling are being told that in order to have their Second Amendment right to own a firearm restored, they must sign a form that gives up all VA benefits! This is blackmail in an obvious form. To think this is the way Obama rewards our veterans for serving our country!

To date, the Veteran’s Administration, the FBI, the Department of Defense, the BATF, and the Department of Homeland Security have refused to turn over basic information that would document their actions. The government also seems to be violating medical privacy laws, since they are transferring information about veterans between agencies. Congress recently has begun investigating the issue. We can only hope they will find the courage to do the obvious and right thing: to protect our veterans’ rights to own and carry arms. No one questioned their competency to carry arms in war time when our country needed them; but now, instead of giving them a parade, the Obama administration has the unmitigated gall to pressure our veterans to give up their arms or give up their benefits!

Yet as bad as this is, the Obamanator now has plans to extend these draconian rules to Social Security recipients. In an effort to get around Congress’ refusal to enact legislation banning or restricting guns, Obama has begun to rewrite rules and definitions dealing with firearms. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, targeted Social Security beneficiaries undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook. There are over 4 million recipients who have their payments managed by “representative payees.”

And how does the Obama Administration justify such unconscionable attacks against our Veterans? Because of the possibility of returning veterans becoming radicalized by right-wing extremists so as to boost their “violent capabilities.” Obama hasn’t yet come up with a similar lame justification to deprive Social Security recipients of their Second Amendment rights, but you can guarantee he’s working on concocting something.

Please forward a link to this video to friends, relatives and your elected representatives to help get this message out in an effort to help our veterans who were there for us when we needed them. Let’s be there for them now.

For more information on how you can help and for a myriad of information on gun rights, visit the web page of Gun Owners of America at:

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Sheriff Announces 4 Controversial Words He’s Putting On The Back Of Every Patrol Car

The motto, “In God We Trust,” now adorns the patrol cars of the Stone County Sheriff’s Office, based in Galena, Mo. The department’s website has also posted an adaptation of a Bible verse and a strong defense of the Second Amendment.

Stone County Sheriff Doug Rader announced the addition of the motto to his department’s fleet on Tuesday via Facebook. Photos of the vehicles with the motto were also posted.


“I am proud to announce that all of the Stone County Sheriff’s Office Patrol vehicles now have ‘In God we trust’ on the back,” Rader wrote. He later added, “There has been no better time than now to proudly display our National Motto!”

The motto was affixed to the cars at no cost to the taxpayer, Rader said, due to the support of a local business he did not identify.

On its website, the department also posted the following verse, which is similar to the text of Romans 13: 3-4: “For the ‘policeman’ does not frighten people who are doing right; but those who doing evil will always fear him.  So if you do not want to be afraid, keep the laws and you will get along well,” it reads. “The ‘policeman’ is sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for he will have you punished. He is sent by God for that very purpose.”

In a separate message posted on the site, Rader confirmed that he is “concerned with the tone of the Obama administration with respect to the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.” He added: “We refuse to participate, or allow our law-abiding citizens to be criminalized, through constitutionally repugnant actions by misguided intentions or politicians.”

h/t: TheBlaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Lafayette And Chattanooga Shootings Have One Striking Similarity No One’s Talking About

While anti-gun activists and gun control advocates will no doubt try to score political points off the movie-theater shooting last night in Louisiana, there’s an aspect to this awful crime that ties it to the Chattanooga massacre of five U.S. servicemen.

Police in Lafayette, La., have now identified the shooting suspect — who allegedly killed two movie-goers and then himself Thursday — as a 59-year-old Alabama man described as a “drifter” who had been staying at a motel near the murder scene. According to ABC News, authorities say the gunman who opened fire inside the packed theater was John Russel Houser.

“It is apparent he was intent on shooting and escaping” before police forced him back into the theater where he shot himself to death, Lafayette Police Chief Jim Craft said at the news conference, explaining that his 1995 blue Lincoln Continental was positioned near the exit.”

In addition to the two dead patrons, at least nine victims were reportedly wounded in the attack that occurred as some 100 people watched the comedy “Trainwreck.” The weapon the shooter used was said to be a handgun, a .40 caliber pistol.

Apparently no one else in the theater was armed. And one big reason for that — one major reason the bad guy with a gun was able to pick off his victims without being challenged by a good guy with a gun — was the gun-free zone policy of the theater’s ownership.

As Breitbart News points out:

The movie theater chain does not even allow law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits to carry for self-defense.

According to the “Conduct Policy” for all Grand Theatre locations, the “possession of firearms or weapons of any kind” are [sic] completely banned and the ban applies regardless of whether the firearm or weapon is carried “openly or concealed, with or without a permit.”

The “gun-free zone” policy was, and still is, a central issue in the ongoing debate about what happened in the Chattanooga attacks on military installations and what could have been done to discourage them or possibly lessen their deadly impact.

Western Journalism reported on the intense controversy that has flared up in the wake of the Chattanooga attacks. A small decal on the bullet-riddled glass door of one of the military installations that came under fire from a suspected domestic terrorist provided a powerful impetus for the debate.

Certainly, there are big differences between arming trained military personnel at facilities where they work and allowing moviegoers in a theater open to the public to carry a firearm for protection. But the core question of whether gun-free zones advertised as such are vulnerable targets that invite attacks is one that will likely be asked and debated just as gun-control fanatics will no doubt pounce on the tragedy in Lafayette as a further reason to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Do you think the “gun-free zone” policy at movie theaters serves to protect us or does it actually make us more vulnerable? Share your thoughts with us in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth