You can get experiential training on this from DOA Tactical.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world’s 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said. “There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people,” it said.

So apparently 1 out of 10 people choose to be a victim and not defend themselves. Then again, if you got 100 of my friends together, you would have well over 500 guns accounted for.

According to the FBI, over 1.5 million background checks on customers were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in December. Nearly 500,000 of those were in the six days before Christmas.
It was the highest number ever in a single month, surpassing the previous record set in November.
On Dec 23 alone there were 102,222 background checks, making it the second busiest single day for buying guns in history.
The actual number of guns bought may have been even higher if individual customers took home more than one each.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Americans are intent on defending themselves and that more of us are waking up to the fact that the government won’t do it for us.

Sarah McKinley was at home with her baby son when, police said, Justin Martin broke into her home and pursued her with a 12-inch knife.
She shot and killed Martin. Another man, Dustin Stewart, was arrested in connection with the break-in.

This story would have turned out MUCH differently if this girl hadn’t defended herself!

Ryan Jerome was enjoying his first trip to New York City on business when the former Marine Corps gunner walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he should check his gun.  The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.

Once again, state’s ridiculous gun laws turn law abiding citizens into criminals while the actual criminals keep on killing - firearm murders in New York were up 7% in 2010 with 517 people being killed by firearms.

This is a good example of different reactions in a chaotic and sudden gun attack.  Two of the officers return fire while one is on the ground injured from the initial attack and another appears to hide behind a desk.  There is one segment toward the end of the shootout where the shooter and one of the officers do the insane - shoot at each other from point blank range.  It’s always interesting to watch real life shootings to see just how crazy things actually are in these situations.  Here you go:

Now just imagine how this would have turned out if the shooter picked a “gun safe zone” instead of a Police Station to go on his rampage.  The ONLY reason these officers are still alive is because they were able to FIGHT BACK!  Gun control is NOT the answer - being armed and defending yourself IS!

In other knee-jerk reactions and not letting a crisis go to waste, anti-gun nut Peter King introduced gun-control legislation that would ban people from taking firearms within 1,000 feet of an event attended by elected federal officials.  This is slightly modified from the previously ridiculous proposal that would ban anyone from having a gun by any elected official.  King, verifying for us that politicians believe they are more important than us regular joe’s, claims that the police have told him this would be a ‘valuable tool’ toward preventing attacks like the Giffords shooting.  What I’m left wondering is:  Which police officers saw Loughner carrying guns at the Giffords event and didn’t do anything about it, at all?  The idea that this legislation would do anything but erode gun rights is ludicrous.

In a big kumbaya meeting put on by Mayor Bloomberg of New York, 34 victims of shootings that nobody supports came up and told their stories in support of gun control.  The meeting however, completely failed to have the opposing view point and didn’t have 34 people come up and tell their stories about how having a gun allowed them to defend themselves and save their life and property.  Bloomberg said of the meeting:

“Dr. King spoke of the fierce urgency of now. You see the fierce urgency of now in these faces,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “You see the fierce urgency of now everywhere, except in Washington.”

But again, he failed to mention the fierce protection of gun rights that a huge part of the nation feels.

In a show of sanity and reason in the face of criminal gun activity, Florida State Senator Mike Haridopolos urged lawmakers that the officers’ deaths should not result in gun control legislation because the killers were criminals and they never should have had guns in the first place:

“Putting restrictions on people who actually abide by the law would be a mistake,” he said. “I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment and I think people have the right to carry a gun and we need to be more vigilant against folks who break the law. These people were hardened criminals and unfortunately guns get in the wrong hands.”

Bravo Senator Haridopolos!

In local Utah news, the Police Officer was cleared in the shooting of the man threatening people at the Oquirrh Mountain LDS Temple on Christmas Day.  Also, A police officer has been cleared for shooting a knife-wielding 21-year-old at a West Valley City home on Dec. 17.

The Utah House is currently considering a bill that would make the Browning M1911 the official state gun.  This would make Utah the first state in the Nation to have an official state gun.   The anti-gun crowd of course needed to have its say - stating that “honoring the M1911 is wrong because mass shootings in the U.S. were done with semiautomatic pistols.”  Which of course is completely ridiculous.  Personally, I’m hoping to be able to buy a special edition “Official Utah” Browning 1911!

SB 36, Concealed Firearm Act Amendments, sponsored by Senator John Valentine

(4) (a) In addition to meeting the other qualifications for the issuance of a concealed
firearm permit under this section, a nonresident applicant shall:
(i) hold a current concealed firearm or concealed weapon permit issued by the
appropriate permitting authority of the nonresident applicant’s state of residency that recognizes
the validity of the Utah permit in that state or has reciprocity with Utah’s concealed firearm
permit law; and
(ii) submit a photocopy or electronic copy of the nonresident applicant’s current
concealed firearm or concealed weapon permit referred to in Subsection (4)(a)(i).
(b) A nonresident applicant who knowingly and willfully provides false information to
the bureau under Subsection (4)(a) is prohibited from holding a Utah concealed firearm permit
for a period of 10 years.
(c) Beginning January 1, 2012, Subsection (4)(a) also applies to an application for
renewal of a concealed firearm permit by a nonresident.

(9) (a) An applicant for certification as a Utah concealed firearms instructor shall:

(v) possess a Utah concealed firearm permit.

(emphasis mine) Let’s sum up the bolded changes to take a look at what we’re talking about here:

A Utah nonresident applicant for a Utah Concealed Firearms Permit must hold a current concealed firearm permit issued by the state they reside in AND that state must recognize or have reciprocity with Utah’s concealed firearm permit.  As of Jan 1, 2012 this will apply to all renewals as well.  Furthermore, the instructor certifying them must possess a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit.

This all sounds pretty dandy at first pass but starts to look pretty undesirable upon serious analysis.  First, let’s lay some groundwork.  The Utah Concealed Firearms Permit is highly coveted by non-Utah residents - and for a good reason.  It is cheap, fairly easy to get, recognized in 33 states and you don’t have to be a resident or visit Utah to get a license.  All you have to do is take a course from a licensed instructor - who currently does not have to be resident of Utah or have a Utah Concealed Firearms Permit - just the Instructors License.  In fact last year 72% of the applicants for the Utah Concealed Firearm License were non-Utah residents!

Utah has become very well known as a bastion for Firearms Liberty and has attracted interest by Gun Owners from all over the country due to our favorable laws.  In fact, the two most popular Concealed Carry Licenses in the country are Utah and Florida - who also has a very easy to get license.

Unfortunately, last year both Nevada and New Mexico dropped recognition of our License because there is no Shooting competency required to attain the permit.  I agree with both of these states in saying that we need shooting competency demonstrated to qualify for our license.  I think it’s a bit silly that we issue these licenses (which I personally find unconstitutional) and don’t require the recipient to demonstrate their capability to properly use a firearm.  So what does all this have to do with the changes to our CFP laws?  Well, nothing really, because Senator Valentine just kind of made up his own reasons:

“I found it somewhat of a ruse on the part of our sister states,” he told the Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee. “The real problem was they wanted to be able to license their own citizens.” … To keep more states from jumping ship, Valentine is sponsoring SB36, which would require nonresidents to be licensed in their home states first.

So because Senator Valentine decided it was a “ruse” for money, he’s decided we need to change our laws - without any real consideration of the consequences to those non-Utah residents who value their Utah Concealed Firearm Permit.  Not to mention he’s completely ignoring what they actually said.  But, let’s take a look at the potential consequences of what he’s proposing.

Suppose you’re a resident of what is known as a ‘may issue’ state such as California, where it is nearly impossible to get a Concealed Firearm Permit unless you can prove a ‘need’ for it.  Or, suppose you’re a resident of the 28 states that do not formally recognize the Utah Concealed Firearms Permit.  If you cared about being able to carry your firearm concealed you would likely have either a Utah or Florida Concealed Permit - and likely have for quite some time.

Under this new change to the law, you will eventually lose your Utah License  all together.  If you don’t already have a license and you are unfortunate enough to live in one of those states, you will not be able to get one at all.  That is the sentence that Senator Valentine is in the process of passing on all those individuals to whom we exported our strong commitment to reasonable gun laws.

So what options are the residents of almost half the States in the Union left with?  They’ll all go get a  Florida Concealed Carry Permit - that’s what.  Nice work Senator!  How about we just change the law to fix the problem that was readily identified instead of making stuff up?  Require a demonstration of Shooting Competency to get a Utah Concealed Firearms Permit.

Note:  The author of this article is both a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit hold and Instructor.  He is also a resident of Utah but wouldn’t want to have to give up his license if he moved to California!

You most likely haven’t because the mainstream media is not covering it at all. The only coverage it has received to this date comes from Glenn Beck and that is only as a result of British Lord Monckton raising the alarm.  Lord Monckton is the man best known for debunking many of the claims made by Al Gore in his Academy Award™ winning propaganda piece, An Inconvenient Truth.  The British government was on the verge of introducing Gore’s film into the school systems as part of its environmental education (indoctrination) agenda, but Lord Monckton’s counter-claims against the film identified such egregious errors and lies in it that they could not be ignored.  As a result, the film was banned from being shown in schools in Britain.  Lord Monckton also produced a counter-film to Inconvenient Truth called Apocalypse? No!

Your representatives aren’t telling you about the treaty either; President Obama certainly isn’t telling you about it; the news isn’t telling you about it.  So, what is it?

The Copenhagen Treaty is billed as a “climate change” treaty, a treaty designed—at least by outward appearances—to address the major issues of “global warming” (which is now conveniently referred to as “climate change,” thanks to the mountain of evidence that shows only decreases in global temperatures since 1998).

The true nature and intent of the treaty is, however, much more nefarious than its billing.

Let’s piece that together.

• First, to help assure you that everything being said here is true and legitimate, here is the link to the treaty on the United Nations website: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf it is 181 pages long. Later in this document, references to the most dangerous parts of this treaty will be provided.
• Second, watch this video of Lord Monckton raising the alarm about this treaty, laying out what will happen and begging US to do something about it!
• Here’s a summary of it:
  • Creation of a World Government that is instituted without election or our input by citizens of the world
  • Transfer of the wealth of developed, industrialized nations (mostly America) to third-world countries to satisfy the “climate debt” that we owe for having done so much damage to the environment in course of our development
  • Subjugation of the world’s citizens to policing and enforcement of treaty policies by the new world government.
• Third, listen to Barack Obama speaking at the United Nations effectively endorsing the treaty and stating that “The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied.  Our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred.” He is referring directly to this treaty and all but vowing to sign it in December.
• Fourth, let’s tie all the pieces together to assure ourselves we’re not being duped. If you refer to the treaty document in the first link, under section 38 you will find the following references (emphasis added):
  • (World Government) a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
  • (Transfer of our Wealth) b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window,(b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the “climate debt” Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
  • (Subject to Policing) (c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

As you can see, section (a) refers to the establishment of a “government” that is not elected by any body of citizens, but is instead appointed, presumably by the United Nations and specifically those who are the driving force behind this treaty.  It’s reasonable to assume that such individuals will appoint themselves, along with others sympathetic to their cause, as “the government.”
The adoption of such a treaty in the United States requires the approval of a two-thirds majority of the Senate, which may lead us to believe that it’s a long shot for Obama to get passed.  Unfortunately, there are already plans in place to subvert this Constitutional requirement through legal means and make this happen right under our noses, plans that only require a simple majority from both houses.  There are two documents that have been discovered that shine a bright light on this nefarious plan:

1. A former Clinton State Department official named Nigel Purvis laid out the extremely detailed blue-print for passing climate-treaties without Senate approval in a paper he wrote entitled “Paving the Way for U.S. Climate Leadership: The Case for Executive Agreements and Climate Protection Authority.” written in April 2008.  The abstract of this document lays out very clearly the plan to subvert the constitution and work around the law using congressional-executive agreements.
2. This document is a legal analysis by a lawyer that determines that this process would be legal – though potentially politically damaging. There is a summary conclusion at the very end that wraps it all up.

If, like me, this raises your hackles, sets off alarm bells and is freaking you out leaving you wondering what can we do – my answer is:  I don’t know.

But we can start with sharing this document and information with as many people as possible, especially media and political activist groups.  We must raise awareness of this!  It took a British guy to raise the alarm – now it’s up to US, our fellow Americans, to spread the alarm and make this a front page issue!!!  Maybe then we’ll be able to figure out what to do about it.

Research for this document contributed by Phil801, NeatBrian, Christopher, AZ Heat & RyanH.

Please feel free to copy this blog post and/or send it to anyone you like.  You may also download this alert in Word format or as a PDF and you may send those files to whomever you would like.