Come And Take It

Viewing posts tagged Come And Take It

Dramatization Depicting the Dangers of Victim Disarmament Zones to be Performed In Austin, Texas

Freedom of Speech and Expression will be tested this Saturday when we use the concrete sidewalk as our stage, with the public and the media as our audience in an important dramatization. Will it be police in the public schools armed with semi-automatic rifles?  Will it be a mangled car on display for students to see the dangers of drinking and driving? Will it be the survivors of tragic personal injury at the hands of another?  No. This will be a serious, theatrical skit consisting of ketchup and cardboard props to capture the reality of the plot.

CATI Austin flagWe won't have high price directors nor a casting agent, just a volunteer group concerned activists bringing to light an important message. A skit of significance detailing a very specific cause, (Personal Protection), a Human Right that seems to have been slowly removed from the people and placed upon a shelf to be voted off or given back according to whomever is deserving of this essential benefit.  Wanting to capture the crucial dangers of gun-free zones we are acting out a play or series of plays in which one or two are armed against a group of unarmed victims, ending in a number of casualties that are a result of a law regulating self-defense or any similar rule that is abided by only the innocent.

Our goal is to instill the importance of everyone to be able to defend themselves in any way they choose. This way we can broadcast it to everyone, including our readers and the listeners of our show. We have had our share of negativity throughout the years and have still came out unscathed by any proposed deterrence of our ideas.  Mahatma Gandhi once said

"You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results".

Our upcoming performance is gaining ridicule and slander from people all across the land, the anti-gun crowd, and even people within our family tree of Freedom Fighters but we will proceed. Most of the finger-pointing bunch just left the theater watching a movie where the characters take up arms against their government like the Hunger Games and are eagerly awaiting the new Star Wars to hit the screen with a similar scenario.  The Chief of Police in Austin, Art Acevedo is against open carry of weapons in public and on campuses and even stated that he'd rather have young women go through rape counseling instead of having the right to carry a firearm for protection.

The State of Texas has installed their own gun control measures upon their citizens by limiting the use of handguns for defense to people who pay a concurring fee and get permission to exercise that right from the State. Texas has even used their version of the 2nd Amendment article 1 section 23 to go as far as creating more Gun-Free Zones by enacting 229.001 a law that gives cities the authority to regulate firearms in designated areas of their choice.

When the ranchers on the Red River were threatened by the Bureau of Land Management we were there, when fellow 2nd Amendment activists were incarcerated, we were there.  When San Antonio police Chief William McManus said No to open carry of rifles at the Alamo we were there.  When the city of Dallas said No, to feeding and clothing the homeless we stood our ground and are moving forward with our third annual event catered to the unfortunate in downtown. When innocent victims are being slaughtered in Victim Disarmament Zones we are here again on the front-lines of freedom and liberty to do what we do best.

"It has long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sit back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things" - Leonardo Da Vinci.   

Our current event will be conducted the same way and will not require tickets, ambulances, or police and will certainly not have a list of victims.  Words can only go so far in explaining ourselves, this way we'll get our message out ten-fold, and hopefully the shackles that prevent us from fully protecting our lives are lifted.

By Andre' Gabriel Esparza -

Date: Dec 12th
Time: 12:00pm
Meetup: 2426 San Antonio St
Austin, TX

Facebook Event Page

The First Midnight Open Carry March Around Texas Capitol

The First Open Carry Of Modern PistolsAustin, Texas  - With September 1st being the start of a number of bills to be enacted in the long list of Texas laws. Come and Take It Texas along with its sister group are taking it into their own hands, these 'Free' men and women will not wait for the new open carry law to go into effect on January 1st 2016, they will show the stupidity of the embarrassing gun laws in the state of Texas on midnight August 31st.

This new law that some say is a win, was not much of a change at all, simply allowing Texans to raise up their shirt a few inches to expose their personal defense tool, while still being extorted of part their personal income to pay the fee, giving their fingerprints, and waiting on permission from the Lone Star State.

You see here in Texas, were everything is supposed to be much bigger and that we are recognized by outsiders as an independent state, is really the opposite, we have shackles on just like most of the others. Here we can carry a fully loaded semi automatic rifles, shotguns, and or pre-1899 or replica black powder pistols in public without a license, but are not allowed to carry a modern handgun or even a little .22 pea shooter open or concealed in public at all. To outline the inconsistency of these draconian, and freedom suppressing laws, a rally of this nature is essential to further educate Texans and the world about all oppressions in good ol' Texas.

Back in January on the first day that the lawmakers convened in Austin Murdoch Pizgatti operated a 'Ghost Gun' Machine at the south gate of the Capitol and manufactured  a few AR-15 Lowers, while a Fort Hood Shooting survivor gave a heartfelt speech about how he was unarmed crouching down in the back of a room and the agony of feeling like a sitting duck while their was somebody shooting at them.

Murdoch Pizgatti and Jason Orsek were asked to leave the Capitol while other Concealed License Holders were whisked right in all for concealing their guns with their 'Glock Socks' which was totally within the law and with the licenses which they obtained, but believe me, they were like a couple of guys forced to eat something they absolutely hated when going through the torturous requirements. Come and Take it Texas and other gun rights groups for the past two years have walked, marched, gathered, passed out literature, and even talked with legislators about gun laws in Texas, but to no avail, lobbyists and fat pockets have prevailed in coercing these law makers to go against freedom. So come join us in our fight for Freedom and Human Rights and walk with us on Midnight August 31st, 2015, at 11:00pm at the south gate of the Capitol, bring a fake gun, long guns, black powder pistols, or you may chose to carry your real one and blend in with others and engage in civil disobedience and let's show them how stupid it really is to carry one and not the other. - View Event Page

By Andre' Gabriel Esparza -

Open Carry Passed in Texas: Mission Accomplished?

Austin Ehlinger helps hold a banner during a Guns Across America rally at the state capitol, Saturday, Jan. 19, 2013, in Austin, Texas.  Texas officials opposed to new federal gun control proposals plan to speak on the steps of the state Capitol during a pro-Second Amendment rally. The event is one of many rallies planned across the country Saturday. They come four days after President Barack Obama unveiled a sweeping plan to curb gun violence.  (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Austin Ehlinger helps hold a banner during a Guns Across America rally at the state capitol, Saturday, Jan. 19, 2013, in Austin, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)


After two years of hard-fought political battles, the tide in the Texas gun rights fight has finally turned in favor of open carry Friday, May 22nd, as the Senate fast-tracked and ultimately approved HB910 eliminating the outright prohibition on the open carry of modern handguns and sending Open Carry back to the House to reconcile the two bills before sending the legislation to the governor's desk.  Governor Abbott has openly declared his intent to sign the legislation, making the era of prohibition only a few short months away from expiration.

The Luby's massacre on October 16, 1991 drew a public outcry that culminated in the 1995 passage of the Texas Concealed Handgun Licensing law.

The Luby's massacre on October 16, 1991 drew a public outcry that culminated in the 1995 passage of the Texas Concealed Handgun Licensing law.

Originally intended to keep newly "freed" slaves unarmed following the States' War, the prohibition on carrying pistols outside the home dates back 125 years and is deeply rooted in institutional racism.  The prohibition was selectively applied in postwar Texas as a legal weapon against Blacks, Hispanics and American Indians.  It wasn't until 1995, after a public outcry spurred largely by the 1991 massacre at Luby's in Killeen, that Texas finally realized the absurdity of depriving law-abiding citizens the right to self-defense.  Licensed concealed carry became the law of the land after four years of heavy political debate, with Concealed Handgun Licenses finally being dispensed by the government on a "shall-issue" basis just in time for the turn of the century.

Today, provided one can afford the hefty licensing fees, meet State's laundry list of eligibility requirements, and comply with the several arbitrarily constructed, common sense-defying conditions on where and how to carry, one should have no problem being granted permission from the government to exercise this God-given Right.  After the new open carry law goes into effect, one will be allowed to carry a handgun visibly, but still must meet all the same liens on liberty.

The question now is, what do we do with this information?  Is it a victory?  A half-victory?  A defeat?

There are four distinct classes of attitudes toward this development, all of which are palpable this Memorial Day weekend.  The first of these attitudes is the obvious, unified front upheld by virtually all Democrats, upon which New York mayor and anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg has spent millions of Yankee dollars.  This is the ultra-statist position that any expansion of gun rights whatsoever is tantamount to a terrorist attack on children, women, the government, and society in general.  Bloomberg and his personal anti-gun political machines, Moms Demand Action for Gunsense In America and Everytown for Gun Safety are undoubtedly heartbroken by open carry's passage, and their copious tears reportedly make excellent gun lube.

Exercising open carry faithfully for two years from 2013-2015 along with diligent political campaigning, resulted in the passage of  "licensed" Open Carry.

Exercising lawful open carry faithfully for two years by dedicated activists, along with two years of diligent political campaigning, resulted in the passage of Open Carry in Texas' 84th Legislature.

The second view is that open carry is a decisive, overwhelming victory for Texas gun rights and the Second Amendment.  (Sure, we're still saddled with arbitrary amounts of government regulation, and we don't like asking permission to carry, but right now it's time to do a heavily-armed end zone dance in the produce section of Kroger)!  This view is held by the majority of NRA types and Republicans who count the open carry law as a sign of the times, and a well deserved payoff after two years of false arrests, armed marches and political campaigning.

Despite the obvious shortcomings of the legislation, there is merit to this feeling of accomplishment.  In light of the heavy resistance from complacent, status quo-loving Concealed Carry advocates, compounded by the virtually limitless resources pumped into the propaganda machine by open carry's anti-gun opponents, the Open Carry activists fought an impossible two-front war.  And they won.

The third view is that of the hardcore Libertarian, the Constitutional purist.  This one despises all forms of government control and counts anything less than full Constitutional Carry as a furtherance of the system of fiat slavery in which rights are ignored and substituted for probationary, government-issued privileges.  These are the types who, rightly or not, are certain to put a damper on the celebration, because the moderates secretly know they have a point.

The fourth and final attitude, which happens to be the correct one, is my view.  Although it may be tempting to cynically offer "how generous of them" in response to the failure of Texas to remove the licensing requirement, we must view this situation with an eye for our present place in history in order to see it in the appropriate perspective.  The fight for liberty is long and difficult, and rightly so if anything valuable is to be gained from it.  We must count our victories, but temper them with the realization that the fight is never over.

Full, unregulated, unmolested Constitutional Carry is still the goal, as it always has been.  But consider that it took over a century and a major massacre to even get rid of outright prohibition.  Then it took a series of illegal arrests by well-meaning but ignorant cops for the general public to even become aware that it was still legal to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun openly.  It then took careful analysis of the laws, experimentation by a few brave activists and further unlawful arrests for anyone to realize that the prohibition did not include pre-1899 pistols or black powder revolvers.

Open Carry is neither a victory or a defeat, it is the accomplishment of one objective in a centuries-old fight for Liberty.  Image:

Open Carry is neither a victory or a defeat, it is the accomplishment of one objective in a centuries-old fight for Liberty. Image:

The worst thing anyone can do now is to allow the public to go back to sleep.  Open Carry is the culmination of two years of relentless fighting.  Right Now, tide is turning, and the momentum is on the side of the gun rights activists.  After a century of lagging behind, Texas is now in a position to set the example for the lesser States with regard to gun rights as it has in economic policy.

Open carry is neither a victory nor a defeat.  It is the accomplishment of one mission, one objective, in a lifelong and centuries-old fight for Liberty.  It is not a Superbowl win, but it's a first-down.  Take it for what it is, and carry on.

By Anthony James Kidwell -

December Newsletter

Here is the Come And Take It December Newsletter. Please print and enjoy. Also, follow and share the links below to get our petitions signed. The time for us to take back open carry is quickly coming. Be there with us in Austin on 1-13-15.
Thanks and Carry On.

Happy Holidays,
From the whole team here at CATI Texas

CATI December Newsletter

HB 195 petition
Stop Straus petition
Come And Take It Texas on Facebook
We Are Coming To Take It event on 1-13-15

CATI Region Facebook Pages:
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6

History Of The Stand Your Ground Law

The struggle for freedom and human rights are woven into the very foundation of the United States. Based on this struggle, we built a society that we have today, which many believe is the society of freedom and justice. Although the modern political and philosophical thought and ideals have set the axiom that refers to the limitlessness of human freedom, which is actually true, we can see throughout recent events that also the freest society in the world has some objections regarding this topic.

Stand Your Ground Law ImageThe whole story has begun 2012, in Florida, as we learn from the media, as a young man named Trayvon Martin was taking a walk in the neighborhood or going home after a sports event when he ran into George Zimmerman, who was a member of a voluntary, but armed civil patrols. As Zimmerman was patrolling in their neighborhood in Sanford during the night, he conflicted with a seventeen-year-Tryvon, thinking that he was one of the robbers with which Zimmerman and his neighbors have had problems with. The argument went wrong, Zimmerman’s gun fired and Trayvon Martin was killed. This event is almost immediately characterized as racist, because Trayvon Martin was black skinned (he was born in Miami), Zimmerman was declared as someone who returns racism through the big gate into the American society (although he had a Cuban mother). Of course, the situation has escalated after the verdict of his release, in which the court, in the case of Zimmerman, is referring to Stand Your Ground law. The situation was followed by a series of protests, and even President Barack Obama commented on this matter. All of this we could have seen in the last few months in the media. As in the case of Dunn, before this, ghosts of canceling Stand Your Ground law, were awaken, who are convinced that it encourages racism, bloodshed, etc. even though they are forgetting about the benefits of the law, which was adopted in good faith and serves to provide a basic right to life and property to a man and a citizen.

To understand the point of Stand Your Ground law, we must investigate its origin and its benefits. Stand Your Ground law is based on the Castle Doctrine and in the last ten years has been adopted in many countries on the territory of the United States. In fact, it is the law relating to self-defense and the very act of defending his personal, private property rights. Every person has a duty to the right to self-defense, "In general, a person is allowed to use force to protect himself, or another, from the use of force by a third person '(qtd. in  J. P. Neyland 3). In order to preserve the inviolability of property and life, in order to preserve personal freedoms of man and citizen shall, indeed to stand up for themselves. Of course, the possibility of which was given to man to defend himself, certainly must not be misused. It rests on the man and the law to determine whether indeed anyone is acting with the intent to protect what is his, which belongs to him or acting to deliberately hurt each other, which is clearly intent to be sanctioned. In her work, Cristina Catalfamo dealt with the history of Stand Your Ground law and its roots in the Castle doctrine. She says ' The now-familiar concept of the right to stand one's ground against an attack is a doctrine of modern law, and its roots in medieval English law were slow to develop '(Qtd. 721). Thus, the defense which involves the use of any type of weapon is not something that was invented to be furthered war, religious or racial conflicts, already existed in English common law, centuries ago. It is well known that the British have their own laws and regulations adopted if they had any specific needs, ie. to prevent consequences of events that have already happened.  Hence the famous saying that a man has a right to defend his home as a castle (Megalet 112). English common law implied and obliged those who are attacked to retreat and take action only when they are in mortal danger inside their home, however, it is often a header to the attacker. So the attacked were seriously injured, and, not a few times, killed. This claim is found in the survey conducted by Cheng and Hoekstra (7). 'This English duty to retreat doctrine was rejected in a majority of states across the United States in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century' (Qtd. Catalfamo in 722). Because of this the duty to retreat doctrine is retained only in some states. At the beginning of the 19th century when law began to develop as a science in this area, as we have said many states in the United States have refused to accept the duty to retreat doctrine, and history says that it was at because of the honor people felt. For them it was not dignified and honorable to flee from the attackers or robbers, or to withdraw, but they directly confronted them, later in the post-war phase, ie. due to the serious consequences that the war left in the South, confrontments were somehow a part of a legal system (JP Neyland 13).

CATI AmericaThe first time the Supreme Court officially recognized human right to defend himself against the attackers was in a process that is driven in 1895, Babe Beard vs. United States. Michael R. Walford describes this event in his post. The story is that Babe Beard was on his property when the three brothers came to ask Babe for a cow, which apparently remained in his estate, and belonged to one of the three brothers. Babe refused to give them back the animal and one of the three began to threaten him with one hand in his pocket. Babe warned them to leave his property and when they didn't, Babe shot and killed one of them ( Babe was arrested and charged with murder, but the court cleared him of charges, just because of the moral and natural principle of the inviolability of life and property. '... If that danger was real, coming from the hands of Will Jones, or it was apparent as coming from his hands, and as affecting this defendant by some overt act at the time, was the defendant called upon to avoid that danger by getting out of the way of it if he could?  The court says he was. The court tells you that he was. There is but one place where he need not retreat any further, where he need not go away from the danger, and that is in his dwelling house ... '(Qtd. from). This is the original quote from the judgment of the court in the case of Beard v. United States, affirming the right of a man to defend himself against attackers. Later, during the 1920's Castle doctrine is increasingly getting affirmation in the United States, and in particular the expansion is experienced in the state of Texas (JP Neyland 14-15, Catalfamo 725-726). After Florida, which first adopted the Stand Your Ground law, ie, with certain modifications of which I already wrote, followed by more than 30 countries. Duty to retreat law is in force in approximately ten other.  And in the opinion polls of the United States, in the opinion of the citizens of the largest democracy in the world, it is a good law. So where is the problem?

If we look at the history of civilization, the history of democracy and the struggle for human rights, not only that a man has the right to defend his life, his  family and his property, but it is his obligation and responsibility.

In the following paragraphs we shall explore a few views and reasons why I think the Stand Your Ground law is  needed in our society and our community.

Let's start at the beginning of the Bible. If God created man free, and that it is man's freedom and his ability to choose, that his will can be directed where he wants, is what distinguishes him from other creatures. What makes a man himself  is the basic and first human freedom, the right to live, a right to be a person. It is something that nobody can take from him  threaten it. However, not everybody uses all their freedoms for doing good and noble things, but some people use it from  base motives, bringing benefit to  themselves and doing wrong to others. The Bible also speaks of this: ’’ 14 Stand your ground, putting on the sturdy belt of truth and the body armor of God's righteousness. 15 For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News, so that you will be fully prepared. 16 In every battle you will need faith as your shield to stop the fiery arrows aimed at you by Satan. 17 Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:14-17).

On this basis, after obscure Middle Ages famous theorist and philosopher Thomas Hobbes  said that man is wolf to a man:’’Homo homini lupus’’ (Rossello 1). Although he was a great liberal,  he felt that something must limit human behavior that interferes with  the freedom of others. And there may lie the answer to the question that we are considering in this paper. There must be something else to take a man as an individual and provide him with protection, to preserve his freedom and independence. The state is the one that operates at a higher level and through police and military guards  its citizens, but in order  to really act democratically, it must allow its citizens to protect themselves in those borderline situations when it can not protect them.

These are well predicted by the Founding Fathers, especially James Madison, who understood the essence of the problem and the Bill of Rights gives the opportunity for solution of the problem: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed '(Amendment II).  James Madison, one of the most important people in our history, a man who is the most responsible for the society that we have, anticipated and it is accepted that no one dares to hurt the right of citizens to own and carry a weapon.This was not for the reason to provide people with an excuse to kill each other, but to defend them from possible aggressors or burglars.

I would add one more benefit that we have from the Stand Your Ground law. How many times have we all had a chance to hear that a girl in self-defense killed a rapist or a murderer and was convicted. Or that a group of thugs break into a man's house, start to harass and disturb him, then, also in self-defense, to protect his family, property and himself, killed someone and was acclaimed as the murderer. Stand Your Ground is protecting the innocent, the helpless and oppressed. We had the opportunity to read in the press about cases of mass rape in India, even that in some cases the victims were found guilty. This question in general should not cause a dilemma in society, every man deserves the right to defend himself and to live.

Also, Stand Your Ground protects minorities. This perspective of the law is ignored. Minorities, especially in territories that are loaded with racial, social or religious reasons, where there are often conflicts of different social groups, can reliably protect themselves with the help of this law and be sure to keep the intensity of the conflict declining, if rambunctious masses had in mind that they can no longer terrorize innocent citizens.

I'll finish with the extract from the transcript of the conversation that took place between the 61 year old Joe Horn and the dispatchers from police. The conversation took place in late 2007 in Pasadena, when burglars broke into the building in which he lived ’

Horn: I have a right to protect myself.

Dispatcher: I’m, I’m right there with you.

Horn: And a shotgun is a legal weapon; it’s not an illegal weapon.

Dispatcher: No it’s not. I’m not sayin’ that.

Horn: Alright.

Dispatcher: I’m not wanting you to, you know, make a mistake.

Horn: He’s, oh, he’s coming out the window right now, I gotta go,

buddy. I’m sorry, but he’s coming out the window.

Dispatcher: Don’t, don’t—don’t go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr.


Horn: Goddamn it. They just stole something. I’m going out the window.

I’m sorry’’(Rice Lave 828)

How would most of us react to find themselves in such a situation? Would we warn the  intruders or would we fight for our lives?

By : Vladimir Milojevic - 

Facebook Bans Gun Safe Ads – In The Name of Safety

Robert Farago - The Truth About Guns


You may recall that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America demanded that Facebook prevent netizens from selling firearms via the service. The social media giant agreed to “delete reported posts that indicate that the seller will not conduct a background check or that a buyer is seeking to avoid a background check” and “block all children (under 18) from viewing reported posts from individual gun sellers or gun pages where guns are sold or traded.” The former depends on snitches and the latter is unenforceable. But that hasn’t stopped Facebook from [further] trampling gun rights on the advertising side . . .

Grass Roots North Caroline press release [via]:

Hyatt Guns, in Charlotte, North Carolina, recently posted an ad for safes and vaults on their Facebook page as part of a Veterans Day promotion. Almost immediately, Facebook’s speech police swooped in and ripped the ad from Hyatt’s page.

The social networking giant asserts that since Hyatt sell guns, which are banned from Facebook advertising for these other, innocuous products is also banned, although Facebook’s official policy does not seem to support that.

Facebook seems concerned that clicking on a safe ad might lead to another click that could lead to another click that could lead to a gun advertisement somewhere else . . . or something like that.

This is what Facebook’s representative had to say about it:

“Your ad was rejected because it violates the Ad Guidelines. Ads may not promote firearms, ammunition or weapons (ex: paintball guns, BB guns, knives, etc)… This decision is final. Please consider this the end of our correspondence about your ad.”

This must be corporate Facebook’s version of “free and open dialogue.”

Facebook ‘Unlikes’ Gun Safety

It is so-called “gun safety” groups that initially pressured Facebook to ban certain discussions and images from its site, and certainly it’s safety that is used as the overall pretense for the site’s gun ban. With “safety” as cover for an anti-gun stance, it is then painfully ironic that Facebook has now banned a business from advertising products that are about nothing BUT gun safety.

Safes are not weapons, so they do not violate Facebook’s policy. And clearly, the sole purpose of safes and vaults is to keep weapons out of the wrong hands—burglars, children, etc. This is the very definition of smart, responsible gun safety.

As though it weren’t bad enough that Zuckerberg’s censors have banned gun talk, now they’re banning anything that might make one even think of gun talk. Below, see how you can quickly and easily send a message to Mark Zuckerberg about his policing of gun-related speech, and his corporation’s inexplicable ban on gun safety products.


Use the information below to contact Mark Zuckerberg. Let him know that you don’t appreciate his censorship of speech on Facebook. Point out to him that promoting gun safety products, like safes and vaults, does not violate Facebook’s stated policies, and banning them is counterproductive if one believes that gun safety is a worthy pursuit.

Phone Mark Zuckergerg, CEO of Facebook at this number: (650) 543 4800. Deliver the following message:

I’m calling because as a Facebook user and someone who is interested in gun safety, I am shocked to hear that Facebook bans the promotion of safes and gun locks. These items are not on your list of banned products, and in fact are used to promote and implement safe practices. Gun safety is a worthy pursuit, and it ought to be embraced by Facebook, not rejected. I strongly encourage you to lift the ban on safety-oriented products such as gun safes, vaults and locks. Thank you.

E-mail Mark Zuckergerg using this address: Use the copy/paste message in the “Deliver this Message” section, below.

Tweet Mark Zuckerberg using the following text and Twitter handle:

Why has Facebook banned ads for gun safety products? Gun safes save lives! @finkd @GrassRootsNC

Post to Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook page here: Use this copy/paste message:

Why is Facebook banning ads that promote gun safety? Safes and vaults save lives and aren’t on FB’s list of banned products (xxx).


Suggested Subject: “Don’t ‘Unlike’ Gun Safety”

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

I have recently been informed that you have banned the advertisement of gun safety products from your social networking site, Facebook. Some time back, you elected to censor speech regarding guns and other weapons, and although I see this as misguided, you certainly have the right to police speech on your own site. However, if gun safety is truly a concern of yours, denying companies the ability to advertise products such as safes, vaults and gun locks is entirely counter-productive. I will also note that safes and vaults are not on Facebook’s list of banned products (they are not weapons).

I ask that you please review your company’s policy of censoring ads depicting gun safety products such as safes and vaults. I do not believe these products violate Facebook’s anti-gun policy. Conversely, these products promote safety, a worthy pursuit that ought to be embraced by Facebook.

Thank you in advance for your serious consideration on this matter. I will continue to monitor this issue via alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.


About: Grass Roots North Carolina is an all-volunteer organization dedicated to preserving the freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. Our main focus is the right to keep and bear arms. GRNC was central to drafting and passing North Carolina’s concealed handgun law and since that time has continued to push for improvements to gun laws. Visit:

Israel Eases Restrictions on Carrying Guns after Synagogue Killings

Robert Farago - The Truth About Guns


“In the coming hours, I will ease restrictions on carrying weapons,”Israeli Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch announced today on public radio. Aharonovitch indicated the liberalization would only apply to licensed gun carriers, such as private security guards and off-duty army officers. The change does NOT mean that anyone with a gun can carry a gun, or that the State will make it easier for Israeli citizens to get a gun license. As TTAG has reported, the Jewish State has been moving in the opposite direction, towards civilian disarmament, for years. If that blows your mind check out the Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel’s reaction to today’s synagogue slaughter [via]. . .

Following the attack, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, the Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel, said that Jews in Israel should not pray in a synagogue unless there is an armed guard. Yosef called on the government to help in funding the extra security.

“In every other public place security guards are stationed; there is no reason synagogues should remain defenseless,” Yosef said, according to the NRG news website.

The slaughter of four unarmed rabbis in Jerusalem may trigger something a sea change in terms of Israelis looking to exercise their natural and practical right to keep and bear arms. We shall see. [h/t AP, Pascal]


DC Police: Even Female Assault Victims have No Right to Carry Firearms

Emily Miller is the senior editor for the Washington Times Opinion pages. She served as the Deputy Press Secretary at the U.S. State Department for Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. She is the author of 'Emily Gets Her Gun: But Obama Wants to Take Yours' which details her struggle to legally own a handgun Washington D.C.

Emily Miller is the senior editor for the Washington Times Opinion pages. She served as the Deputy Press Secretary at the U.S. State Department for Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. She is the author of 'Emily Gets Her Gun: But Obama Wants to Take Yours' which details her struggle to legally own a handgun Washington D.C.

 Emily Miller, FOX 5 WASHINGTON D.C. -

I am a registered gun owner, but I feel that I'm in more danger on the streets of Washington, D.C. than inside my home. So when D.C. recently passed a new law allowing for some rights to carry a gun outside the home, I decided to apply for a permit. I quickly found that it is still impossible to exercise my Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Until July, Washington, D.C. was the only place in the country did not allow for any right to carry a gun outside the home. A federal district court judge ruled in the Palmer case that the total ban was unconstitutional.

The D.C. attorney general said last week that the city will appeal the ruling. While the issue goes through the courts, the Metropolitan Police Department has started giving out applications, so I went to the firearms registration office to start the process.

Milton Agurs, a civilian police department employee was at the front desk. I told him why I was there.

“You need to meet two criteria,” Agurs explained. “First that your life is in danger, your family or your property, or you have the type of business you carry large sums of money, jewelry. Under those circumstances, you can get a carry permit in DC.”

“To prove my life is in danger?” I asked. “Obviously there is a rising crime rate and a high rate of murders and sexual assaults in D.C. -- is that enough to say I want this for self-defense?”

“You have to prove you need concealed carry as opposed to just wanting one,” he replied.

Prove a need for a constitutional right? That's what D.C.'s new law says.

The application that Agurs gave me said that living and working in a high crime city is not enough to get a carry permit. I read further down where it says that it has to be “a special danger to your life."

What's the difference between a regular danger -- like getting raped and murdered on the street --- and a special danger? You have to prove you are being targeted.

“Do I have to give evidence?” I asked.

“Yes ma'am,” said Agurs.

“I was a victim of a home invasion. And I've gotten a threat against me. Do I just give the police records?” I asked.

“Yes, ma'am,” he said.

I asked Agurs who will decide whether or not my self-defense needs are special?

That's something the chief of police will do,” he said, referring to Chief Cathy Lanier.  “But you'll have your reasons why you feel like you need it.”

“The chief of police personally will decide whether or not I get a carry permit?” I asked.

“You know it usually works-- it's going to be her or someone on her staff,” he said.

Proving a “need” is just one part of the carry permit application.  You have to do 16 hours of classroom training, plus two hours at the range.

“Where do I go to do that?” I asked Agurs.

“Unfortunately, I think they are still setting up the classes,” he replied.

There's the rub.  The city isn't actually abiding by the court decision. No one can apply for a carry permit because the police haven't certified any trainers for the mandatory classes. That might be partly because D.C. charges trainers $400 to be certified.

In contrast, Virginia accepts any class that is certified by the NRA. And there's no minimum time requirement for training.

So I asked Agurs:  "The Second Amendment right to bear arms just doesn't fully apply here?"

"I believe when the Second Amendment was written, that was more or less for when the British were coming."

When the British were coming? The Bill of Rights is no longer relevant?

Well, I spoke with Alan Gura, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Palmer case. He said that the city's new carry permit law is unconstitutional and does not adhere to the court ruling. Gura has filed a request for a permanent injunction, which a district court judge will hear on Nov. 20.

So I can't go any further in the application process until the police certify someone to teach the 18 hours of classes. The police gun registration office told me to keep calling to find out when that happens.

C.A.T.I. Brings True Meaning Back To Festival

On October 3rd-5th 2014 Gonzales, Texas hosted the COME AND TAKE IT FESTIVAL. A festival
dedicated to Texas history. You see, on October 2nd 1835 the first shot was fired of the
Texas revolution. The Mexican Army demanded that they surrender the 6lb cannon that was
given to them to protect the colony. 18 Texans stood their ground and was out numbered
just about 10 to 1. The Texans waived what we now know as the Gonzales Flag. A white
flag with the cannon the Mexican army wanted with the words 'COME AND TAKE IT" spelled
out on it. The Texans fired the first shot that would lead to Texas gaining its
Independence and freedom. What was special about the Festival this year was that it had
a Float in the Parade like no other. The crowd of about 10,000 cheered as a Very Special
Float made its way down the Parade route. This was the first time the festival had a
float like this. The float was the TRUE meaning of the event. It belonged to a Texas Gun
Rights Group called "COME AND TAKE IT TEXAS" and was decorated with banners and many
Texas revolution Flags, but that is not what made it special. What made it special was
the Texans that were walking and riding on it. They where heavily armed Texans openly
carrying the arms that many "gun grabbers" are itching to take. These Texans made an
emotional display for many as they realized the TRUE meaning of the COME AND TAKE IT
FESTIVAL. They payed respect to the ones that secured our Freedom and showed that we
are still in a battle to secure our freedom. While talking with many locals at the
festival they expressed how it is our DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to take care of our self,
our family, and our community. They said we as citizens are the first responders and the
right of self defense is a natural born right protected by our Constitution. Wee should
never let anyone infringe on that. A big victory for Texas was made this year at the
festival as thousands really understood the meaning of the festival and the importance
of the right of self defense. This was the 2nd year the C.A.T.I. Texas group attended
the festival but a first to have a Float in the parade.
A little background on the Gun Rights Group "COME AND TAKE IT TEXAS".
C.A.T.I. TEXAS is on The Frontline of Gun Rights in the State of Texas and working hard
to restore our rights that have been stripped away. They are well know for Open Carry
demonstrations and was the 1st group in Texas to push for the open carry of a pistol in
Texas, tryinng to just catch up to 45 other States.


Open Carry Book for Children is #1 Bestseller on

My Parents Open Carry, a book authored by founding members of Michigan Open Carry and Michigan Carry, has become a number one bestseller on proving once again that the true majority of Americans overwhelmingly oppose gun control despite earnest attempts by groups like Moms Demand Action to portray Americans as helpless hoplophobes in need of an ever-expanding nanny state.

The book's website explains:

"My Parents Open Carry was written in the hope of providing a basic overview of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the growing practice of the open carry of a handgun. We fear our children are being raised with a biased view of our constitution and especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment."

In contrast to the statist myth that people are afraid of guns, the authors express a very real and justified fear resulting from the literal "brainwashing campaign" by Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and others to convince people that owning a gun is "...not cool, that it's not acceptable."
"We have to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." - US Attorney General Eric Holder

"We have to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."                                                       - US Attorney General Eric Holder

In a 1995 speech by Eric Holder that was aired on C-SPAN, the Obama regime's Attorney General deviously fantasized about devolving the American mind so that the natural right of self-defense would be as shameful as the self-detrimental habit of smoking. Holder explained: "over time, we changed the way that people thought about smoking, so now we have people who cower outside of buildings and kind of smoke in private and don’t want to admit it.”
Reflecting the true nature and traditions of American culture; the authors of My Parents Open Carry, Brian Jeffs and Nathan Nephew, took it upon themselves to address a neglected need thereby working to protect the rights of all Americans, regardless of whether or not they support human rights in regards to self-defense.

"Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any. Our goal was to provide a wholesome family book that reflects the views of the majority of the American people, i.e., that self-defense is a basic natural right and that firearms provide the most efficient means for that defense. We truly hope you will enjoy this book and read and discuss it with your children over and over again."

My Parents Open Carry is sold on for only $10.76 and is eligible for free shipping; evidence that the authors are motivated by a love for Liberty, not cashing in on the media frenzy surrounding the open carry issue. Bulk discounts are also available through the publisher, White Feather Press, LLC.
Even for families that are pro-gun, owning multiple copies of this important book is worth considering. While the book undoubtedly makes an excellent gift for nieces and nephews growing up in "progressive" households; too often parents passively assume that their values will be absorbed by their offspring instead of actively teaching the importance of, and reasons for, traditional values.

Today's children are increasingly likely to become adults that are diametrically opposed to the  Renaissance ideals that propelled Western civilization to the heights of human development. This is of course due in large part to the concerted effort by Globalists like Eric Holder that have permeated every facet of civilization.
In 2008 Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University, David Kopel, addressed this threat in a piece entitled The Human Right of Self-Defense.  

"The United Nations Human Rights Council has declared that there is no human right to self-defense. Moreover, the Council has ordered all governments to enact very restrictive gun laws (more severe than those of Washington, D.C., or New York City, for example), and has declared that failure to enact such laws constitutes a human rights violation. Further, the HRC states that it is a human rights violation for a government to allow a person to use a firearm in self-defense against a rapist or other criminal who is not attempting homicide."

-  David Kopel, The Human Right of Self Defense

Let that sink in for a moment...
"This can only be achieved through  the progressive strengthening of international institu-  tions under the United Nations and by creating a  United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as  the disarmament process proceeds."        -Freedom From War, US State Department 1961

"This can only be achieved through
the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."    - Freedom From War, US State Department 1961

The United Nations has declared that you have no right to self defense! To accept this edict means that even the provisional allowance of firearms use in order to prevent homicide is nothing more than a privilege granted by our self-appointed overlords! This 'privilege' would certainly be revoked should we allow the US State Department to fully implement Freedom From War, the 1961 plan for "General and Complete Disarmament".
This plan is publicly available on the Library of Congress website and reveals that the State Department has been working with the UN to render the world's population defenseless for more than half a century.
When John Kerry signed the infamous UN Arms Trade Treaty last year, the state media insisted that it was only a harmless piece non-binding, feel good philosophizing on the part of global orchestrators. However, that will change ninety days after the ATT has been ratified by 50 countries making it a binding and enforceable treaty. On June 4th of last year the UN gloated that eight more countries had signed on bringing the number to 40, only 10 short of the number necessary to begin disarmament of the world's population, forcibly if necessary.
The enemies of Freedom and Liberty are monolithic, tireless and unyielding. In contrast, the Liberty Movement has for too long stagnated; crippled by infighting, a lack of mutual support and laziness. We can no longer be contented by complaining and playing at armchair politics. We face a very real effort to literally enslave our own children that will succeed if we do not overcome our apathy, ignorance and laziness. For less than the cost of a fast-food meal one could purchase a copy of My Parents Open Carry and use it as a tool to strengthen mankind's defenses against tyranny.

Isn't that the least we could do?

 - James Franklin is an activist and writer whose work focuses on issues of liberty, human rights and government accountability. His work has been read by millions online at The Examiner, Freedom Outpost, Intellihub, The Daily Sheeple, Gun Owners of America, The Daily Paul,, Come and Take It America and many other sites. He is a husband, a father of three boys and a native Texan. He works as an electronics specialist in the West Texas oil fields, as Regional Director for Come and Take It Texas and as a contributor for Follow him on Twitter @mailboxuno.