Thank you for visiting. My thoughts & Feelings are my Own.

Here I will share my feelings about America and her Future.

Let it be known to all the World, I love all Humankind, however the poor actions of the few that take away the Freedom's of the many wear on my soul. I don't hate them I feel sad for their foolishness before God and humankind.

Those leaders who seek to 'Keep their Oaths of office' and those who seek only self glory, power, tyranny and the destruction of America as it was founded, hoping to turn it into a Dictatorship, Marxist or other state of Tyranny.

For a long while I was unsure of putting a blog together with my thoughts on this, however Truth must be shared, if not to Awake American's to their dangerous situation then to record the folly of the ways of the wicked who do exist in the leadership of our Nation, States, Counties, Towns. Sad that I must add this page.

"We often search for things in life, yet seldom do we find.

Those things in life that really matter, until we make the time." S.T.Huls

God Bless the Republic of America!

We have Got To Stand Up!!

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Molon Labe! the Movie: An Oath Keepers Nation-Wide Call To Action

MOLON LABE: How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom
Americans see their country degenerating into a lawless, para-military police state because Constitutional homeland security is not being properly effectuated. A James Jaeger film, featuring RON…
Added on 2/11/13
You are receiving this message because you are a registered member of Oath Keepers. Don't forget to add to your address book so we'll be sure to land in your inbox!
You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.

Quick Links

Oath Keepers Site

Join Oath Keepers

National And State
Chapter Forums


Contact Oath Keepers




Molon Labe! the Movie:
An Oath Keepers Nation-Wide Call To Action

Link for this article at Oath Keepers' national website, where you are invited to leave comments -

Molon Labe! the Movie:  An Oath Keepers Nation-Wide Call To Action

by Elias Alias, Oath Keepers editor * February 25, 2013
We are going to talk about Molon Labe! the movie, but first, allow me to just say that I am chuckling up my sleeve in the wake of the Obama Administration's all-out assault on the Constitution and its Second Amendment. Why? There are several reasons. For one thing, Obama has done more for gun sales than anyone in history. Also, he has with this one major goof, awakened millions of Americans to the direness of our time in history. Additionally, he has alerted the liberty movement on both sides of the aisle to the fact that the General government now feels big enough to finally take full control over the American people by asserting some vague, opaque, and presumed authority to actually disarm a free people across the board, Left and Right and all in between. Finally, Obama has made liars of the ADL and the SPLC in a most costly way. Let me explain:

When Oath Keepers formed in 2009 we were attacked by the media (Hardball and the O'Reilly Factor etc.) and by private-sector think tanks such as the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) and the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center). We were described as "anti-government" and "extremists" and "conspiracy theorists".

All who attacked us publicly with such slurs have since shut up about us, silenced by the actions of their fearless leader, President Obama. Obama is not only the most successful gun salesman in American history - he also has trashed his cheerleaders dandily by doing exactly what they chirped he never would do - such as come for our guns

Indulge me for one brief example please. This is what the ADL published about Oath Keepers in 2009:

One manifestation of the ideology of resistance was the creation in March 2009 of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government group that tries to recruit police and military personnel and veterans. Members refuse to obey hypothetical "orders" from the government, "orders" that speak more to their own paranoid and conspiratorial beliefs than to any realistic government action. The "orders" the Oath Keepers refuse reveal their extreme conspiratorial mindset, because the "orders" are not instructions ever likely to be actually handed down by Obama or his officials; instead, they are reflective of the anti-government conspiracy theories embraced by the extreme right. The first "order," for example, that they refuse to follow is any order "to disarm the American people."

The ADL scoffed at the very first of our "Ten Orders We Will Not Obey" -

Again: The ADL said, "The 'orders' the Oath Keepers refuse [to obey]
reveal their extreme conspiratorial mindset, because the 'orders' are not instructions ever likely to be actually handed down by Obama or his officials..."

Well, that was then, and this is now. Obama most certainly wants our guns, and one of his champions put it this way -

Dianne Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in
Dianne Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in



So the anti-gun lobby calls Oath Keepers "anti-gov", when in reality Oath Keepers is supporting the very document which created the General government by calling for the reinstatement in every State and County of the Constitutional Militia. That is what
government is supposed to be doing, as Dr. Edwin Vieira points out clearly. The Second Amendment contains the only item which the Constitution says is "Necessary" - "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State....". Nothing else in the Constitution is said to be "Necessary".

So the conflict is actually between anti-gov /anti-gun forces and the patriots who are demanding that the General government get back into its Constitutional box of enumerated duties. In reality, the criminal-minded anti-gun movement is actually the anti-gov movement, and Oath Keepers is not related to either. You may ask how I can say that. It's simple, really.

Your right and duty to keep and bear arms as an individual member of the Constitutional Militia is mentioned in four places in that founding legal charter which created the government, is it not? The Militia is mentioned three times in the main body of the Constitution and once in the ten Amendments which were enshrined in the Constitution prior to ratification -  the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., has laid this out very nicely in his extraordinary book, "The Sword And Sovereignty".


Since the Constitution created the General Government, anyone who would go against the Constitution must be the real culprit who is "
anti-government".  Oath Keepers supports the entire Constitution as written, but the ADL is hell-bent on ignoring the importance of the Constitution's denotative statements which require that the States have and maintain their respective Militias. So in fact, it is the ADL which is "anti-government" because of the ADL's participation with the Gun-control Lobby, which supports Obama's attack on the right and duty of Americans to keep and bear arms.In fact, Dr. Vieira's book is a scholarly history of the Militia of the several States and is rendered with superb Constitutional contexts by the man I think to be America's foremost authority on the original intent of the Founders. Dr. Vieira's book is so powerful that it has inspired James Jaeger of Matrix Entertainment to commission a new film based on the book. And that new film is what I want to inspire everyone reading this to support big time, right now.

James Jaeger has a collection of remarkable documentary films produced in the highest of standards.  He has completed five already and his sixth is now progressing nicely. Named "Molon Labe", this newest in his Constitution series of documentaries is packed with experts which include Stewart Rhodes our Founder; Chuck Baldwin our national Chaplain; and Sheriff Mack member of our Board of Directors - three of our favorite Oath Keepers. But also in the film is Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Pat Buchanan, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, Larry Pratt, Catherine Austin Fitts, and other serious thinkers who are devoted to educating Americans about the deeper meanings in our Constitution.

Molon Labe: How The Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom
is the definitive movie about the Militia of the several States.This past week James Jaeger and I enjoyed a long conversation. James is the quality film maker who specializes in Constitutional documentaries. He has five wonderful films in his Constitution Collection.  All of those movies are now available online for free downloading and viewing.  Click here -
Ron Paul and G. Edward Griffin and Edwin Vieira are regulars in each of James' movies, and Pat Buchanan often joins in along with varied other experts. James' sixth documentary film is all about the Militia of the several States. Because Oath Keepers is the one organization which has the guts to stand up for the
whole Second Amendment, James has offered us a wonderful opportunity to help with the production of this film Molon Labe! 

As James has stated already -

For those of you who haven't seen the new trailer - complete with donor and producer credits as of 09 Feb 2013 - it's up at This trailer has a clip of Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Stewart Rhodes and Pastor Chuck Baldwin's interviews.  We will include a clip from Larry Pratt's interview as soon as it comes in from our DC-VA camera unit.

MOLON LABE: How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom
MOLON LABE: How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom

(EA note: That interview with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America has been filmed already and will be in studio first week of March, whereupon a clip of Mr. Pratt will be added to our public trailer.)

Let us note something about the NRA, while thinking of GOA. Last week I posted an article at Oath Keepers national about a Massachusetts town which has just thrown out the Obama-styled "assault weapons ban".  

At the town hall meeting where this was announced the packed house gave a standing and hearty ovation. In response, the president of the NRA had this to say on the record -

The NRA's David Keene responded to the decision with the organization's standard middle-of-the-road defense of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.
"One of the things that people in these town meetings and other folks ought to look at is the constitution itself. It is possible and it is legal to put certain restrictions on second amendment rights," he said, "but those kinds of restrictions have to be looked at very critically."
[close quote]

When I pointed that out to James Jaeger and a few friends, one  replied back to me:

Some suspect that Mr. Keene may be expressing the conventional wisdom that no constitutional rights are "absolute", but that all of them are subject to some "regulation".  On the general level, this is probably less than accurate as a "right" implies freedom of action, whereas a "regulation" implies some curtailment of that freedom. So, if there is a "right", to that extent there can be no "regulation"; and if there is "regulation", to that extent there can be no "right".  It would be safe to wager that 95+% of the legal profession holds a similar view as the NRA and probably has never questioned it because this is what they were taught in law "schools", and this is the method of "analysis" used currently in the courts.  Thus, I imagine that Mr. Keene is less malicious than he is misinformed.
Unfortunately, this may be the way most of the hierarchy in the NRA, and the NRA's Second Amendment "defenders", also think.  There may be room for a more conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment.
And James Jaeger adds -
Like Larry Pratt, Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA, has also been taking intense abuse from the gun-control lobby.  Can you IMAGINE how this abuse would  escalate were the NRA to acknowledge that gun ownership serves basically FIVE purposes, not just THREE?!  The three everyone talks about are: 1) target practice, 2) hunting, and 3) self-defense, but the other two almost never mentioned are: 4) deterrent against tyranny AND 5) participation in the "Militia of the several States".  Why are 4 and 5 almost never mentioned even though the Founders mention the Militia in four separate places in the U.S. Constitution?  If the Founders mention deterrent and Militia, but few others mention them, is this not be a serious red flag?
MOLON LABE - How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom
, now in production, will address this red flag and discuss how an application of the Constitution can remedy most of the problems WE THE PEOPLE currently have with our government and our nation's security.
If you view this brief three minute trailer and look at the opening credits you'll see that James wants Oath Keepers to play a prominent role in the production of the film.  That is important for Oath Keepers, because this movie is going to be the hottest movie in the patriot movement this year.  It is important to Oath Keepers that all of our members feel a sense of involvement, and personal pride in the production and distribution of this movie.
Therefore I am calling on each patriot reading this to voluntarily do two things now, and one other thing later after the film goes public.

First, please donate to this movie: For online donations:  

The reason I am asking for donations is to hurry the film along to completion. As more money comes in, the completion date comes much sooner. Oath Keepers thinks that this film is very important and because of our nation's precarious balance under the threat of outright tyranny we would like to see this movie completed by early summer. That is entirely possible if enough of us donate to the project. Think of it as an Oath Keepers project, something each of us can do in the comfort of our own homes, yet it is something with huge power when all of us pitch in together.
For checks or money orders or wire transfers:   

Matrix Entertainment Corp., 223 W. Lancaster Ave., Devon, PA 19333. To arrange for a direct bank deposit or a confidential donation, please contact us by the above address, email us at or call us at (212) 933-9374. Thank you.

Secondly, please pass this article around to your friends and email lists, and tell people about the movie.James' FIAT EMPIRE went viral during Ron Paul's 2008 campaign as the Tea Party awakened to the ominous problems inherent with the Federal Reserve System. More than five million Americans downloaded that film.  Because of today's political climate, laced as it is with unbelievable tension and pre-revolutionary stress, Molon Labe! will fare even better - with our help.  As a total tool for Oath Keepers' Reach, Teach, and Inspire program, nothing could be a greater blessing.

Oath Keepers is presently launching "Operation Molon Labe! Counties".  Molon Labe! the movie is a positive asset for that project. The sooner it's out to the public, the better for our Counties.

Oath Keepers is currently launching our "Molon Labe! Pledge".  Again, Molon Labe! the movie authenticates that stance by Oath Keepers.

Thirdly, after the film is released to the public this summer, please hold screenings in your local area, your civic and public groups, even home viewing parties, so that you're doing your part in preparing your County to be a Molon Labe! County. This movie will not only validate Oath Keepers courageous stance in calling for the reinstatement of the Constitutional Militia of the several States, it also will give a huge boost to Sheriff Mack's Constitutional Sheriffs And Peace Officers Association by adding another dimension to his traditional Posse.So those are reasons why Oath Keepers is now asking for your support in helping James Jaeger and Matrix Entertainment launch "Molon Labe!", the movie. My Friends, it's time! I'm all in. Join me! Do it for Oath Keepers! Do it for America the Beautiful!

Message From James Jaeger
A new website has been created for MOLON LAB at At this site you can read the script, listen to the narration, review the budget, see what experts are in the show and watch additional clips.
MOLON LABE will be our sixth film on the U.S. Constitution.  FIAT EMPIRE, featuring Ron Paul, was the first and this went viral, won a Telly Award and hit #1 on the Internet three times.  You can watch FIAT EMPIRE, and the other four films, as a free public service at More than 15,000 people watch these movies every day, so word IS getting out.
But we need your help to complete MOLON LABE quickly.  Time is of the essence.  If the gun-control lobby gets a "law" passed to require universal background checks, it's only a short step to universal registration and universal confiscation.  Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and extreme statists in today's gun-control lobby know the drill well.  So PLEASE disseminate this email.  Put all or part of it up on your website and donate what you can by going to Multiple donations can be accumulated to earn screencredits farther up the producer chain.
Thank you for all you have done and your attention to this important project,


Final note from Ol' Elias

- Please make sure that you let James know that your donation came from Oath Keepers - it will help him keep tabs on how well our organization helped produce this movie. Also, if you cannot donate, please at least send a postcard to James at the address above to let him know you'll be spreading the word for the movie. And please do pass this article around to everyone. This is a work which we all can do and will have positive effects. Even better, we can all learn about our history and the fine points of the Constitution while we're at it.

Time's up. This is the time. Dr. Vieira has given us a plan which will work as we take back our country at the County and State level. It's non-violent in the tradition of Martin Luther King and Gandhi, it's Constitutional, and this one can actually work!

Seize this vision. Catch the Spirit of 1776!
Do it now!

Thank You, Oath Keepers!  Hoooahh!

Elias Alias, editor
Link for this article at Oath Keepers' national website, where you are invited to leave comments -

Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Free music concerts for the troops, with direct outreach to them about their oath

You do not need to be prior service to join Oath Keepers. All Patriotic Citizens are invited to join as an Associate Member. 

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

Support Operation Sleeping Giant, Join Oath Keepers and get involved.

Operation Sleeping Giant

Join Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is growing FAST, but like General Patton, we are outpacing our own supply lines. Your donations are "fuel" for our advance! If you would like to support the Oath Keepers vital mission to teach the current serving about their oath and about the Constitution so they will stand firm and do what is right, and our second mission to remind veterans of their oath and obligations.:

Please click the PayPal image below to donate. 

If you would like to mail your donation:

Make checks payable to: OathKeepers

Mail to:
Oath Keepers
5130 S. Fort Apache suite 215
Las Vegas, NV 89148 
This email was sent from an unmonitored email address. If you wish to contact us, please use the contact form on the contact page of our website.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Catastrophe when America’s twin gave up guns

Catastrophe when America’s twin gave up guns

Catastrophe when America's twin gave up guns

Tragic tale of frontier nation's abandonment of firearms, freedom

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
By Nick Adams
SYDNEY, Australia – In the country that has some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the world, law-abiding citizens must obtain police permission before purchasing a gun and subject themselves to public ridicule, surprise searches without warrants, arbitrary confiscation and burdensome government regulations.
It’s a fate that could befall America, some warn, if citizens willingly surrender their firearms – and with those guns, an entire nation’s hard-won freedom.
Australian Josh Coughran, who was forced to turn over his pistols and license when increased work commitments prevented him from completing burdensome gun-range attendance requirements, cautioned that gun “reform” is a slippery slope.
“It’s a viral epidemic that starts small and eventually envelops its host, often resulting in death,” he said. “The devil is in the details, and our story bears true to that old adage. What started as a small attack by a minority on semi-automatic rifles is now what it is today.”
His message to Americans?
“Do not surrender a single one of those rights that have been purchased at such great cost in blood,” he warned. “I still wonder how the country my forefathers fought and died to defend became the instrument which took away my rights.”
Why do good people need guns? In “Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense,” Charl Van Wyk makes a biblical, Christian case for individuals arming themselves with guns.
When Australia enacted some of the world’s strongest gun-control measures in 1996, it was never anticipated that the following headlines would be splashed across the nation’s major newspapers in just the last month: Sydney is a city under fire,” “Fists give way to firearms,” “Customs failing to stop the entry of illegal guns into Australia,” “Aussies own as many guns as before 1996,” “Firearms control thrown in spotlight as gun numbers rise” and “Middle East squad to work on gun crime.”
These media stories reflect the complex and sobering tale of Australian gun-control efforts, a journey that travels from the vast borders of the Australian coast to the suburban streets of its most populous city and documents the failings of seemingly unrelated matters of immigration and multiculturalism.
With this coinciding with the renewed gun debate in America in the wake of Sandy Hook, Australian gun control advocates, far from undeterred, are energized and appear determined to revisit the past. One headline on the nation’s most popular news website declared, “New gun buy-back scheme needed: Gun-control advocates.”
Despite mushrooming gun crime and gun numbers in Australia, there remains little appetite in the nation’s populace – or political will for law repeal in the parliaments – for a return to the days prior to 1996.
Firearms today have no part in Australian culture, with an entire generation of citizens having never held one.
But it wasn’t always this way.
Australia’s transformation from gun nation to gun-hating country is a tragic tale, often misrepresented or inaccurately told. It is a story of treachery, timing and constant political cunning – one that has moved the agenda of gun control away from guns and ammunition to mandatory attendance and gun ranges. And those organizations best placed to campaign for gun rights have been bought into silence.
1942: Australia’s own ‘Pearl Harbor’
1942 Darwin bombing
Few Americans remember that in February 1942, Australia had its own “Pearl Harbor,” with the bombing of the city of Darwin. In fact, while far less significant as a military target, a greater number of bombs was dropped in this raid than in the Pearl Harbor attack. In its immediate aftermath, civilians of all ages collected their guns, assumed their posts and waited. Even the civilians of the indigenous population, the Aboriginals, assisted, using guns to kill or capture Japanese prisoners of war.
Three months later, the Japanese attacked the harbor of Sydney. Full-scale invasion appeared inevitable. The people of Sydney immediately grabbed their firearms, met with their neighbors and took to the streets. Thankfully, despite the Japanese having printed currency specifically prepared for use in Australia, the invasion never eventuated.
This was a time when Australia was well armed. Almost everyone had a gun, and almost everyone knew how to use them.
Gun ownership was an integral part of the culture, and through an individual’s experience of shooting at or after school, in the military, or cadets, they were adept at their usage. An equivalent of the American Second Amendment – a luxury never afforded to the Australian population – appeared entirely unnecessary. Even national cinematic efforts reflected the deep gun culture of Australia, where even children learned gun safety and operation.
Australia, through its history, was a gun nation, and it would always stay that way.
Or so it was thought.
1996: Exploiting tragic gun rampages
Six weeks after the deadly Dunblane school massacre in Britain on April 28, 1996, in Port Arthur, Tasmania, a 29-year-old mentally ill man used his Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to conduct one of the most murderous rampages of the 20th century, leaving 35 dead and 21 injured.
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard
With the election of a new conservative federal government just a month earlier after some 13 years of Labor Party (Democratic) rule came substantial political capital. Newly elected Australian Prime Minister John Howard seized this and moved almost immediately to enact some of the strictest gun laws in the world, known as the National Firearms Agreement, or NFA. It banned civilians from owning self-loading (i.e. semi-automatic) rifles and shotguns, as well as pump-action shotguns.
Additional legislation introduced concurrently across Australia as part of the NFA tightened the criteria for “genuine need” and purpose of use, enforced safe storage of firearms and ammunition and mandated training and reporting.
Notably, self-defense was outlawed as a “genuine” reason to possess a firearm.
This required the cooperation of all of states and territories, as Australia’s Constitution does not permit the federal government to enact gun laws. The states in Australia are financially dependent on grants from the Commonwealth (the federal government), so the federal government gets its way with the states much more than in the U.S.
To force the hand of the states, Howard threatened to take the matter to a national referendum to change the Constitution should the states refuse his laws. He was successful.
In doing so, at an enormous financial cost totaling more than half-a-billion dollars, Howard implemented a generous gun-buyback scheme, which resulted in Australians visiting their local police station and turning in their weapons. And they did it in droves. Hundreds of thousands of firearms were handed in voluntarily.
The public relations campaign of the government, riding on the emotion of the massacre, captured not just the weapons of the citizenry but also their hearts. Most were convinced that by turning in their weapons they were acting in the best interests of safety and the nation, and they did it without a heavy heart.
There was some opposition to the reforms, primarily from people living in non-urban areas, but it was little match for the powerful sentiment at the time.
In January 2013, Howard wrote a New York Times opinion piece titled, “I went after guns; Obama can, too,” recounting the Australian experience.
What happened to ‘Come and take it’?
Many in the United States wonder: How could law-abiding people simply submit to government demands on such a fundamental matter of individual freedom?
What cultural influences could be sufficiently powerful to witness citizens voluntarily entering their local police station to turn in their firearms, instead of crying, “Come and take it“?
Americans have been conditioned to instinctively think and act as individual. The Australian’s equivalent conditioning, while significantly less than the European, is nevertheless more toward the collective. Contrary to the outdated worldwide perception of the Australian stereotype as a fiercely rugged individualist, the average Australian almost always leans to compliance over prospective conflict.
In addition to this, at the time of the proposed gun laws, shooting groups were reportedly threatened that noncompliance would culminate in eviction from government land ranges.
Despite their compliance, civilian shooters would later be locked out of ranges, and their right to shoot alongside the military was revoked and rendered illegal.
‘Divide and conquer’ gun groups
With the 1996 reforms, Australia introduced some of the strictest and most cumbersome gun laws in the world, born largely from emotion, rather than rational, evidence-based policymaking.
But aside from civilian compliance for the buyback, the story of how Prime Minister Howard and his government were able to effectively silence and garner the support of the reasonably entrenched gun organizations at the time is a fascinating study in human behavior and psychology.
Many shooters suggest within this study that there is a lesson to be learned in the form of a warning for American gun owners.
Faced with multiple associations representing a particular section of shooting (such as the Rifle Association, Pistol Association, Hunters etc.), and having indicated his desire to legislate with the support of gun industry and shooting associations, Howard met with each association separately.
Keen to ensure their membership and association would not be affected, each group pledged support for all of Howard’s initiatives, provided that he left their “gun type” alone in the new legislation. Manipulating each group’s self-interest, Howard employed a “divide and conquer” tactic, which led to the complete implosion of the various associations.
Despite this, there remained some stubborn opposition. Aware of the historical nature of the reforms, Howard had to sweeten the deal. To do so, he and his government looked at how they could win the support of the remaining associations, clubs and ranges. They devised attendance requirements and compulsory club ownership, whereby shooters, depending on the firearm, were obligated to attend their local club and range a certain number of times in the year.
Associations – which were battling declining memberships and had begun struggling financially a decade earlier in the mid-1980s when the sport of shooting in Australia had become extremely expensive – suddenly had great reason to support the gun-control measures that were being proposed.
At the time of the gun-reform proposals, fearing the fix was in, shooters and gun-rights advocates began joining (the closest equivalent in the U.S. would be registering political affiliation) their state division of the Liberal Party of Australia (the mainstream conservative party and that of the Howard government; the equivalent of the GOP) in an effort to influence opinion through the party.
However, the Liberal Party rejected their memberships and refused to allow them to join. In one state, court action involving several hundred shooters insisting their membership be accepted made it to the Supreme Court, but it was unsuccessful.
Cultural realities today
Any interest in, or support of, firearms in Australia today is considered suspect and unusual by the general population.
As one popular Australian website explained, “[I]t’s unlikely they’ve ever seen a gun, much less held or shot one. Most Aussies would be surprised to know that there are gun ranges in Australia.”
Contrary to international perception, Australia is one of the most urbanized countries in the world, with almost 90 percent of its population living in cities. With this concentration, as well as substantial Asian and Middle Eastern immigration, traditional Australian sympathies and cultural appreciation of responsible firearm ownership have been diluted to the point of virtual nonexistence.
In today’s Australia, a reference to a “weapon” among law-abiding men is far more likely to involve an attractive female than a firearm.
For public officials or prominent individuals, just being photographed in the presence of a firearm is considered scandalous.
No politician of a major political party would dare, particularly after the example of Sen. Ross Lightfoot in 2005, and no senior government official after the examples of former Australian Wheat Board chairman Trevor Flugge and sales chief Michael Long. However, elite sportspeople are as subject to this unwritten rule as politicians, bureaucrats and their staffers.

In June 2012, two young Olympic athletes from the Australian swim team sparked national outrage when one posted to his Facebook profile a personal photograph of the two posing with guns in a California gun store at the conclusion of an official pre-Olympics training trip to the U.S. In response, the Australian Olympic Committee ruled that the swimmers had brought the entire Olympic team, themselves and their sport into disrepute. The AOC settled on the athletes being forced to immediately leave the Olympic Games in London at the conclusion of their event and banned them from social media until the games were over.
Even the leading Australian winemaker, Yalumba, found on the shelves of American supermarkets, removed itself from the NRA wine list, withdrawing its stock and refusing to service the account, citing philosophical differences toward guns.
The gun paradigm in Australia
With some of the strictest and deliberately cumbersome gun laws in the world, Australia today is the envy of gun-control advocates worldwide and held as the model to which all nations must aspire.
Gun-rights advocates in Australia are on the political outside, considered to be “the cultural fringe.”
While considerably more may harbor pro-gun sentiments, exceedingly few of these are prepared to publicly voice their opinion. Mainstream media coverage and editorials concerning guns in the country are almost exclusively supportive of strict gun control, as evidenced here, with any dissent usually calling for even tighter controls. As it is in Europe, discussion of gun control in Australia is considered “apolitical,” unframed by support of the “left” or the opposition of the “right.” As a result of this, divided opinion is scarce: Most of those who identify as either liberal or conservative in Australia are united in their view of guns.
All gun-control measures in state and federal politics have been bipartisan, although the more cynical suggest in a political culture where voting is compulsory, gun-control reform was embraced and continues to be led by conservatives seeking to take ownership of the issue and negate the country’s left from making it political.
The failure of Australian conservatives, even those purportedly pro-American, to associate gun control with individual liberty or political correctness or the feminization of culture reflects the nature of the Australian political system: It is largely absent of ideology and philosophy, with the voting public favoring the transactional to the transformational.
Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker, who had their 2006 study published in the British Journal of Criminology, concluded that the Australian experience of reducing gun ownership, banning certain firearms and imposing onerous regulations hasn’t resulted in a safer society.
Based on the paper, the head of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, said, “I too strongly supported the introduction of tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. The fact is, however, that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings, but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice.”
An Australian Institute of Criminology graph produced for the 10-year anniversary of the gun reforms in 2006 suggests the buyback and subsequent reforms had little to no effect on the murder rate, leading to a spike in knife-related homicide. Although last month, the AIC distanced itself from this graph and claimed gun reform had been successful.

Setting aside these statistics, it remains clear from the revelation that there are more guns in Australia today than there were in 1996, and the festering undercurrent of drug gang-related killings in Sydney and Melbourne since the early 2000s, as well as the almost daily reports of neighborhood shootings, that the criminal element remains armed, despite the reforms.
A shocking list of strict regulations
Despite assertions to the contrary at the time, the NFA and its additional legislation did not end gun reform in Australia. Subsequent legislation by each of Australia’s five states and two territories has created even stricter gun control.
As a result of this, never before in Australian history has gun ownership been so low among law-abiding citizens. Many Australians are forced to surrender their firearms through the burden of compliance regulations and cost, unable to meet the requirements for family, work or medical reasons.
“The current firearms licensing legislation and system are not evidenced-based. … [I]t is misdirected, unwieldy, costly, error-ridden and it is rapidly becoming unworkable,” said Geoff Jones of the Sporting Shooters Association of Queensland.
Gun owners point to increasing delays for approval, longer waits for permits and the increasing difficulty to comply with ever-swelling regulations.
Such regulations are wide-ranging and govern the transportation, use, purchase and storage of firearms, as well as gun-club membership and gun-range attendance requirements, all based on the class of firearm.
The following are some basic Australian regulations:
  • To own a firearm, you are required to have a license (an application for such will usually take at least three month for all processes to occur, e.g. criminal checks, safety courses, etc.).
  • All firearms are to be registered with police.
  • Self-defense is not a valid reason but a prohibited reason. (While you may own a long-arm for various reasons, there is only one reason permitted for a handgun license, and that is competition target shooting.)
  • Every firearm holder must be a financial member of a registered gun club at all times. (More than this, it must be an association approved by the commissioner, who may at any time dismiss the association, leaving all members of that organization in breach of the law.)
  • Every time you wish to purchase a firearm, you must apply to the police for a permit to purchase that particular gun, which may be denied at their discretion without any reason provided.
  • Every firearm must be stored in a safe that is “secured to structure,” and the installation of the safe must be viewed and approved by police before use (with strict rules down to the number of bolts outlined in the Police Registry Guide irrespective of the weight of the safe).
  • Transportation of firearms may only occur between storage location and gunsmith, or storage location and shooting location. (Any breach will result in instant confiscation and arrest.)
In addition to these, the Australian gun owner is subjected to the following realities in 2013, courtesy of ongoing regulations:
  • Mandatory attendance requirements for those who own handguns include a minimum of six target shooting visits to the pistol club per year for the first firearm and two additional visits per additional handgun, where competition scores from “approved matches” must be recorded each time.
  • Mandatory attendance requirements for those who own rifles or long-arms include either a minimum of four visits to the rifle-range per year (if target shooting is declared as the reason on the license) or a minimum of two visits to the rifle range per year (if hunting is declared).
  • Pistol clubs and rifle ranges are legally required to inform police if a member has not met the required competition shoots, and they are not permitted to admit a member if the member hasn’t met these requirements.
  • Firearms collectors must belong to an approved collectors club and attend at least two meetings a year.
  • If a citizen has firearms on his property, the police have a right to search the property without a warrant any time they wish. They’re not legally required to advise the citizen of a visit in advance. (In the last 18 months, one general constable as well as a firearms licensing officer in full combat gear attends.)
  • In the event that any party involved in a personal complaint owns firearms (whether the complaint was instigated on his behalf or otherwise), prior to investigation, the police confiscate the firearms for an indefinite period of time.
It would also surprise Americans to learn that Airsoft or BB guns are prohibited and categorized as Category A weapons, the same class as shotguns and rifles (and subject to the same regulations). Anyone found in Australia possessing an unlicensed Airsoft pistol or BB gun faces the same charge as a person who unlawfully possesses an actual firearm.
Entire disciplines of sport shooting in Australia have been abandoned or restructured, as a further consequence of the changes in legislation.
Another avenue of attack: the gun range
With ongoing regulations and gun owners’ fear of losing their firearms due to a minor technicality at any time, governmental gun control targeted at individuals, guns and ammunition is slowly exhausting. In addition to this, from the buybacks to enforcement, such a path is costly. Yet the government’s gun-control agenda includes another avenue of attack: the gun range.
Gun ranges and clubs are now the target of random audits, safety, health and building inspections. Any plans for new ranges are met with powerful opposition.
In late 2011, it was proposed that several gun clubs be closed in Tasmania due to their proximity to a newly built illegal immigrant detention center. The federal government, in concert with local councils, has begun focusing on range compliance in a bid to shut down various ranges.
Unlike many other countries, public lands in Australia belong to the Commonwealth or the federal government. Most ranges are on federal land and have been targeted by the government.
In the most prominent case to date, the famous Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar – where Australian soldiers trained for both world wars – was evicted by the federal government. The reason given was asbestos buried by the government in the 1940s, with Minister Penny Wong declaring the site a “health hazard,” despite protestations to the contrary and the matter never having been raised previously. In addition to this, the sale of such sizable land, as gun ranges are by nature, is lucrative for government.
Disarming the citizen and empowering the criminal
Now, 17 years after gun-control measures were introduced, more guns are in Australia than ever before, AR-15s are being manufactured in Melbourne, firearms are flowing into Australia at more than double the rate of five years ago, police have launched Operation Apollo in a bid to regain control of gun crime at the hands of Middle Eastern crime gangs and politicians fight over border protection flaws that see illegal guns on Australian streets.
In the light of this, it is difficult to contest the assertions of law-abiding gun owners that the gun-control measures of 1996 were ineffective, imposed a great cultural and economic cost and succeeded only in disarming the good and empowering the criminal.
To understand and appreciate the climate within which the gun owner or sporting shooter of Australia resides, one need only read this speech.
Given the cultural attitude toward guns in Australia, many of Australia’s leading gun owners groups and individuals were reluctant to be interviewed for this story.
Why do good people need guns? In “Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense,” Charl Van Wyk makes a biblical, Christian case for individuals arming themselves with guns.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference (This is Very Intersting Untangling Federal Jurisdiction in your County)


Published on Apr 26, 2012
Stephen Pratt from Utah, teaching about "Untangling Federal Jurisdiction in your County." An extremely interesting presentation on how the federal government took possession of the majority of land in the Western States.

4min Teaser:

part 1of3:
part 2of3: Post
part 3of3:

Disclaimer: Mr. Pratt's views are not necessarily the views of the membership of the Western States Sheriffs Association. His presentation was for educational and informational purposes only. For further information see:

Government Scientist Fired for Telling the Truth

Government Scientist Fired for Telling the Truth

Published on Jan 18, 2013
The Department of Interior is misleading the public and purging scientists who don't go along with an increasingly radical green agenda. Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which begs the question, "Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?"

Rural America has long been a target of environmentalists. Government agencies such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the DOI (Department of Interior) have been hijacked by extreme elements of environmentalism and rural America is feeling the heat. When environmental protocol is pitted against the welfare of a rural community, these agencies almost exclusively side with the environmental cause, and adverse consequences to the human element are considered last, if at all.

DOI has engaged in an aggressive crusade to obstruct and undermine the use of natural resources, restrict human access to public lands, and increase its influence over private property. Decisions made by the agency are presumed to be based on sound scientific analysis, but often times policy is driving the science, rather than science driving environmental policy. This has led to harmful decisions and a violation of the public trust.

According to the DOI the premise for Klamath River dams removal is to restore Coho salmon spawning habitat above the dams even though there is no conclusive evidence the Coho were native to the area. Official DOI documents reveal scientific concerns that dam removal may, in fact, result in species decline based on millions of tons of toxic sediment build up behind the dams that will make its way to the ocean. Water temperature increases without the dams could also negatively impact the salmon. These studies were ignored. Concerns about the human toll and impact to local Klamath Basin communities were also brushed aside. Those most interested in the well-being of the environment they live and work in, were given a backseat to special interests thousands of miles away.

The Klamath hydroelectric dams provide clean inexpensive energy to thousands of local residents who will be forced to pay much higher premiums if the dams are removed because California has strict new laws for use of renewable energy. The town of Happy Camp sits on the banks of the Klamath River and could be wiped out with seasonal flooding without the dams. Once Coho salmon are introduced into the upper Klamath, farmers and ranchers will be faced with water use restrictions and invasive government regulation of private land. The economic impact will be devastating, property values will depreciate and the agriculture community, often operating on slim profit margins, will be subjected to the fate of the once vibrant logging industry which fell victim to the spotted owl crusades.

Read more: