By Douglas J. Hagmann
As appeared in the Wisconsin Christian News
According to the 2021 National Firearms Survey, 32% of Americans over 18 years-old admit to personally owning a firearm, meaning that more than 81.4 million Americans own guns. Additional research concludes that when family members who live in the same household with a gun owner are included, there is at least one gun in an estimated at 44% of households in the US, according to a recent Gallup survey. Furthermore, there are over 393 million guns owned by private citizens (not counting the military or police), or the equivalent of 120 firearms per 100 citizens. About 78% of Americans who admit to owning guns own an average of five-(5) firearms, while approximately 22% of gun owners only own one.
Consider that in 2020, there were nearly 40 million guns legally purchased in the US, according to FBI records – the highest number of purchases ever recorded for a single year. In 2019, the number of purchases were recorded at just over 28 million firearms, an increase of nearly 40% in 2020 alone. This year, we appear to be on track to match or perhaps exceed the purchases of the prior year.
In the wake of the Uvalde school shooting and just like every other “mass shooting event” in recent memory, clamor for more stringent gun laws (whatever that means) are increasing in shrillness and intensity by every unthinking pseudo-intellectual with a smart phone and a social media account. These “mile-wide, inch-deep” social influencers and elected lawmakers believe that more laws that restrict gun ownership will solve a problem that’s rooted in the moral and spiritual decay of a nation, while the justice and law enforcement systems which are already in place have been intentionally neutered by enemies of our American history, heritage, and way of life.
Consider the above gun ownership statistics against the calls for stricter gun control legislation. Also, consider the likely remedies that we could possibly see enacted and enforced by the entrenched federal “Uniparty” who have already weaponized the Department of Justice against the most dangerous of all domestic terrorists – the daring cabal of parents and concerned citizens who voice their objections at school board meetings against the perverse indoctrination of their children with LGBTQ and Critical Race Theory. We’ve already witnessed how this Justice Department, under the current leadership of Merrick Garland, has demonized the political and moral opponents of the Uniparty, whether they are outspoken at school boards, city council meetings or even political rallies on issues ranging from CRT, election integrity, COVID and objectionable school curriculum. We are now considered to be the biggest threats in America.
In a column written and published in The Blaze on June 1, 2022, Daniel Horowitz wrote: “Let’s not forget that in the country we live in today, our government considers [social and political] conservatives to be the biggest red-flag threats to society. In February, the DHS posted a National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin identifying ordinary people who hold different views as the elites on COVID policies and election security as the number-one terrorism threat. Under ‘Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment,’ the very first factor listed is ‘The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions.’”
The Process Becomes the Punishment
While we remain primarily focused on the possibility of sweeping gun laws that restrict certain types of weapons, we tend to lose sight of the more insidious possibilities that sound more sensible and even palatable to the staunchest conservatives considering the widespread gun ownership. Expanding, for example, existing red-flag laws that would permit the government to strip a citizen of their constitutional rights of gun ownership and even their freedoms, simply based on a complaint by a school board official or teacher would have a chilling effect on a law-abiding gun owner to speak out at a public-school board meeting. Speaking against a perverse agenda or exposing corruption might not only result in your designation as a threat and ejection from a meeting, but it could cost you your freedoms and your guns as well.
While it would seem to be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to separate Americans from their guns through outright banning and wholesale confiscation, considering the sheer numbers of guns and gun owners, might their tactics be wrapped in such a noble-sounding cause of addressing the most dangerous threats to their utopian society? As Daniel Horowitz pointed out in his column, consider what happened to many physicians who prescribed Ivermectin to treat COVID patients. The state medical licensing boards threatened to take away their medical licenses, in many cases “based on complaints – not from patients, but from political enemies.” In some cases, doctors were required to submit to psychological examinations, and were relentlessly harassed because they failed to submit to the will of their overlords. I submit that the situation here is and would not be dissimilar.
By speaking out against an objectionable public policy, you can now be classified as a domestic terror threat and have your guns taken and even prohibited from living in a household where other members own guns. The same could happen should you post a comment perceived to be a threat on a social media platform. And this is merely the beginning. After all, many of us who have experienced any kind of adverse actions based on our beliefs and practices, have learned that the process itself is the punishment.
Meanwhile, the federal government can chip away at the guns themselves. They can (and perhaps will) reinstitute and even expand the useless and ineffective “assault weapons ban.” They can limit the capacity of magazines and make parts and ammunition both unaffordable and unavailable.
Those in positions of power know that unarmed Americans are not citizens. They are subjects. Just as America has been an annoying speed bump on the road to a Communist-Globalist objective, so too are armed Americans who are vocally opposed to this “Great Reset.”
I suspect that “sensible” gun reform will not only pass but be praised by many on both sides of the political dias as some great compromise that preserves the rights of socially, morally and politically conservative Americans. It will, however, be a Trojan Horse that will shred the rights of American citizens. Such tactics are designed to render us both voiceless and defenseless against the criminal wiles of our totalitarian government. After all, it is us – Christian conservatives who believe in God, right and wrong, the sanctity of life of the unborn, marriage between a man and a woman, and the pride of nationalism who are the enemies the globalists detest. They want us out of their way. Dead, if necessary. It’s not the guns, it’s us.
On behalf of those who gave their lives for our freedoms and future generations, we must fight and resist at all costs all attempts to disarm us. History provides ample illustrations of what happens next should we fail.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Every American gun owner, regardless of the state in which you live, is presently or will be the target of gun confiscation. A state-by-state framework of confiscation is being erected in front of us all to strip us of our rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A “hot” microphone serendipitously caught proof of this nefarious intent of disarming citizens at the conclusion of the May 9, 2013, meeting of the New Jersey State Legislature.
At the conclusion of the New Jersey Senate Budget & Appropriations Committee meeting last Thursday, an open microphone caught three state senators, identified by voice as Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, Assistant Majority Leader Sandra Cunningham, Senate Majority Whip Sandra Cunningham, and at least one staff member talking candidly about their intent to confiscate all guns from the people they serve. It should be noted that Senator Loretta Weinberg is the chief proponent of the anti-gun legislation being moved through the New Jersey State Senate.
Although some of the candid conversations are difficult to discern due to the ambient noise, their message is clear. “We need[ed] a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate,” stated one high-ranking senate member. “They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their ‘little guns’ and do whatever they want with them,” added another in a demeaning manner. Another conceded that gun owners do want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but added that “they don’t have any regulations to do it.” Oh really?
For anyone doubting the bitter contempt these legislators hold for gun owners and pro-Constitutionalists, a YouTube video that captured the “open microphone moment” is available for review.
During the second hour of The Hagmann Report that aired last night, we interviewed the highly credentialed Scott Bach, Esq., Executive Director of the Association of the New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, who explained the draconian laws being written and passed in the State of New Jersey. “Clearly, this is about nothing less than disarming the American public, and the current battleground is in New Jersey,” stated Mr. Bach. “You might not be experiencing it in your state… yet, but you will. It’s just a matter of time.”
We must do everything we can to preserve, protect and defend our Second Amendment rights, or we will lose much more. Regardless of where you live, the fight is coming to you if it has not yet arrived. We must be proactive, and yes, we can make our voices heard to counter the utter contempt of these lawmakers regardless of your state of residence – while we still have the chance. Let’s hold these opponents of our constitutional rights accountable for their words and actions.
The time is now, and the fight has been left to us. Make your views known and your voice heard by contacting the NJ Senate Majority Office by phone (609-847-3700) and/or fax (609-633-7254). Do it before it disappears as an option.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Presently flying under the radar of the American people is the much misunderstood, deliberately mischaracterized, and under-reported United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty. Considering the persistent multi-level attacks against U.S. gun owners and American’s rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “Final U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” that convened yesterday and is scheduled to last through March 28, 2013, should be front page news all across America. But it’s not, and for good reason.
Most people, including conservative Americans, thought the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was a dead issue, or at least not a threat to U.S. gun owners based on a number of assumptions relating to international treaties and U.S. Constitutional law. Like everything else with the Obama regime, however, things are never what they appear, nor are they as simple as we are led to believe.
But first, let it be made clear that Barack Hussein Obama is on record as being against the private ownership of firearms by American citizens. This might surprise anyone who listens to the hysterically-pitched assertions by such Obama lapdogs as Chris Mathews and Lawrence O’Donnell, for example, who contend that Obama has posed no threat to private gun ownership as President. Such assertions are only convincing to those who have not done any research into this matter.
Barack Hussein Obama has a long and well-documented history of gun control, going back as far as his law school days. There, he was mentored by Laurence Tribe, a staunch opponent of gun rights of American citizens. In 1994, Obama was a member of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based charitable organization that, in part, is a proponent of various anti-gun groups and related agendas.
In 2003, Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in Illinois. While running for political office in 2004, Obama called for national legislation to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. As reported in the February 20, 2004 edition of The Chicago Tribune, Obama was quoted as “back[ing] federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.”
In the April 2, 2008 edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Obama was quoted stating, “I am not in favor of concealed weapons… I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted twice against SB 2165, more commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine,” which would permit household occupants to defend themselves through the use of firearms.
Perhaps most nefarious and telling of all is what Obama whispered to Sarah Brady during a meeting on 30 March 2011 concerning gun control: “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
By far, and despite the intent of Obama-supported organizations such as Fact Check and Media Matters, it is clear that he is the most anti-Second Amendment (putative) President ever to hold office.
Perhaps most disconcerting about the present actions of the United Nations is the cavalier attitude held by most, including many conservatives, that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty would be completely impotent against the U.S. Constitution and Americans’ rights under the Second Amendment. After all, it is argued that to be effective, such a treaty would require Senate ratification, and at present, such ratification would have a “zero possibility” of passage. Such thinking is consistent with a normal political atmosphere and an administration that has a genuine respect for the U.S. Constitution. Considering what we’ve seen over the last decade, does the recent track record of our elected leaders alleviate your concerns?
Consider that within 24 hours of his re-election, Obama pushed for a new round of international negotiations to revive the very U.N. treaty he visibly backed off of in the months leading to the 2012 elections. Isn’t this act alone enough to trip some alarm bells, even among the most skeptical?
It should also be noted that on February 26, 2013, the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, concluding that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” A review of this four-page document reveals certain questionable assumptions on which that conclusion is based.
This is a warning to all Americans that the Obama support of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty can lead to some “UN-intended” consequences to Americans’ right to own and bear arms. Americans looking at this issue are failing to look at the larger picture, which is the ultimate subjugation of the United States to global governance. This can most effectively be accomplished through the disarmament of its citizens, especially in the face of violent outbreaks as the U.S. and the world’s economic systems begin to unravel.
The machinations of the Obama regime within the inner workings of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty must not be underestimated. We must look at the bigger picture and the end-game objectives of the globalists pulling the puppet strings. All is not what it appears.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
I attended a gun show yesterday morning, just over a quarter-century after attending my first and only gun show. The first venue was located less than a mile from the current venue. Despite the passage of time, the memories of attending my first event remain surprisingly fresh in my mind. I still recall many of the people and conversations from my first event, as well as the sights, sounds and even the “feel” of that particular gun show.
Attending the event yesterday was like seeing an acquaintance I had not seen in 26 years. I’m certain you know the feeling I am attempting to describe. Perhaps it might be an old flame, someone you once worked with, or maybe even a distant relative. Over time, you retain a mental image of that person, their appearance the last time you saw them, as well as their voice and even their demeanor. You remember them the way they were the last time you saw and interacted with them. Then, you meet them again and are awestruck by their subtle and not-so-subtle changes.
In the autumn of 1986, I recall listening to gun show attendees talking with the vendors. Most of the discussions revolved around hunting in the hills of northwestern Pennsylvania, selecting the best gun for hunting deer, turkey, and other wild game. At that time, many of the attendees were talking about their previous year’s hunting exploits, comparing notes about the best hunting spots and boasting about the different ways they cooked the venison for their families.
Twenty-six years later, the conversations were as different as the atmosphere at the event. Largely absent was the talk about hunting, venison recipes, and deer stands. I observed hundreds of men (and many women) of all ages slowly walking through the aisles created by the booths of gun vendors and survival items. I mingled with as many as possible, attempting to listen to their hushed conversations. I struck up conversations with more than a dozen attendees and asked open-ended questions to assess their moods and mindsets. Like that old acquaintance not seen for over two-and-a-half decades, the changes were stark and dramatic.
Over the course of three hours, I spoke with a total of fourteen men (attendees) and two vendors. I deliberately kept the conversations casual and the questions general. My primary questions involved asking the attendees why they were attending and if they were going to (or already had) purchased anything. I posed my questions informally, as just another person at the event.
Every person I spoke to told me they were there to buy a gun, or another gun and/or look for bargains for ammunition. With the exception of one man, every person I spoke with said they were there to look at or buy weapons and/or ammunition for self-defense. The sole exception was not really an exception at all, as he stated that he already had all he needed for self-defense and was there to purchase a more comfortable holster for concealed carry purposes.
I can best describe the mood of the people I spoke with as somber, although that might not be the best adjective to use. Pensive, perhaps, with a “somber” overlay, as if they were leaving a funeral home after paying their respects to someone they once knew. In unrelated conversations, three of the men, each appearing to be on the trailing edge of their fifth decade of life, stated that they could feel that “something’s coming,” although did not elaborate on what they felt that “something” might be.
It is here that I stress the importance that none of the people I spoke with seemed to relish the thought of meeting that “something” head-on. None were looking forward to doing battle and even exhibited a reluctance – even sadness – about having to worry about being prepared. At one point, I recall thinking that I’d seen happier people at the DMV. There was no talk of specific politics, political parties or policy, the upcoming elections, and not the least bit of discussion about race or national origins. The “something” they were feeling seemed much bigger than that, and I felt it as well. There was something very ominous in the air, and it was almost tangible.
Each of the attendees I spoke with seemed to telegraph a sense of quiet urgency. It was not what they said, but how they said things. This quiet, determined urgency was reflected in their serious, focused demeanor.
I observed five of the men purchase long guns for home defense while eight others bought additional ammunition. I lost track of the man in search of a holster, but suspect he found what he needed based on the inventory at this event. Everyone appeared to be making purchases.
A quarter century ago, I remembered stocking up on beef jerky from one of several vendors. Yesterday, the beef jerky booth attracted some people, but fewer than I recall. Instead, one of the larger booths was staffed by the operators of a survival store, with long-term storable foods and water purification systems stacked high and deep. Their business appeared brisk, and I watched a half-dozen people leave with large containers of emergency food.
Before leaving, I spoke with two vendors on opposite sides of the venue. Both reported brisk sales at the show as well as at their respective stores. Both said they had seen their sales of handguns, long guns, and ammunition climb rapidly over the last five years. I asked both what they thought was behind the increase in sales. One of the older men was quick with his response, stating, “well, the country has changed, and not for the better.” I then asked him when it had changed. After a brief pause of reflection, he replied, “when ‘normal’ people started waking up to the fact that we’re a country ‘out of control.’” He added that the 2001 attacks might have gotten people’s attention, but the larger threat is “something else entirely, something from within. People can feel it.”
Yesterday, I not only saw it, I felt it as well. It’s not 1986 anymore.