by Tim Inwood

It used to be in this country that if you were arrested for a crime you were presumed innocent until trial. Now if you are a crime victim you may be perceived as a criminal if you are a gun owner. After reading an article about a burglary in the Land of Lincoln, my blood went to a slow boil.

In the wee hours of an August morning, Rockford (IL) police were called by the victim’s neighbors to report a burglary. What the police found was the disorganized and cluttered home of a gun owner. The burglar had fled, but the police were surprised to find a collection of about three hundred firearms. The 67 year-old homeowner was out of town. Research by police showed he is a legal FOID cardholder in Illinois and the guns apparently were registered. Nevertheless the police proceeded to stack his firearms outside his home and then take the guns into custody. I have to ask, since when is the property of the victim confiscated as suspect?

The comments from the neighbors were equally disturbing to me. Coley Woods who lives across the street said, “Even if he’s a registered gun owner or not, that just seems like its too many rifles.” Oh really! Says who? Since when is there a set number on what any American can own? It used to be a free country, Has that changed?

“It’s just un-real to see this many guns involved a regular residential neighborhood,” says concerned resident McArthur Tennin.”

From the article:

“At the current time we’re taking the firearms for safe keeping as evidence until we can further investigate this,” says Deputy Chief Lindmark.

Neighbors say even though the weapons may be legal, they still pose a security threat to their neighborhood.

The story concludes by noting that, as of late Wednesday afternoon, “police haven’t charged the homeowner.”

Charged with what? Gun ownership? That is appalling!

I find it disturbing that there is an automatic assumption that something is wrong because someone owns firearms. The fact that someone has a large collection suggests nothing more to me than a hobby or investment. Are we concerned if we find a large collection of baseball cards or stamps? No, of course not. But because of the “culture of sheep” mindset drummed into so many people in this country, there is often an automatic assumption by some that something is fishy if you own guns. The comment that the firearms being in the neighborhood is some sort of security threat is ludicrous and ignorant. I have little patience with such thinking. I note that nowhere in the story do any of the neighbors suggest any issues or problems with their gun owning neighbor. Yet now he is a “security threat.”

The events in this story happened in Illinois, a state that has produced anti-gun politicians like Mayor Richard Daley and President Barack Obama, and still lives in the dark ages of denying their citizens any form of law that allows the carrying of arms for defense. So I suppose I should not be surprised by the anti-gun bigotry exhibited. I can only pray things improve for the citizens of Illinois. But it also reminds us that it is up to all gun owners to do our part to educate the public on the fact that our hobby of gun collecting is as natural as collecting sports memorabilia, coins, tea pots or any other hobby pursued by other law abiding Americans. We gun owners are not a threat to anyone except to politicians who wish to ban our guns and that threat is only carried out at the ballot box.

Make no mistake, friends, we may have the Heller and McDonald decisions behind us, but those who wage war on gun ownership are not deterred or going away. They are as determined as ever to take your guns and vilify you in the process. Join the fight to protect your gun rights today.

Tim Inwood is the current Legislative Liaison and Past President of the Clinton County Farmers and Sportsmen Association, an Endowment Member of the NRA and Life Member of the OGCA, Republican Central Committeeman for Chester Township A, in Clinton County, Ohio, and a volunteer for Buckeye Firearms Association.

full story  I was unable to get the video to play on this site. I think they have disabled it.

Eddited after the EPA rejected this petition.

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition.

Thats correct the LAW forbids the EPA from regulating ammunition but the new socialist government under Obama does not care what the law says.

If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds.

• There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.
• Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the 50 state wildlife agencies.
• A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.
• A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle’s recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition – the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.
• Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.

(If you missed GOA’s testimony at the Kagan hearings, you can view it here: http://gunowners.org/kagantestimony .)

While much has been concealed, what we do know about Kagan is not good, as her public service has clearly shown antagonism to the Constitution and the Separation of Powers.

For example, when it became clear that the Supreme Court might strike down parts of the Brady Act (which it eventually did in 1997), Kagan suggested that President Clinton “by executive order, [might] prohibit a FFL from selling a handgun” without a certification from local police.

In other words, Kagan believed that the President could circumvent the role of Congress and to act unilaterally, without any legal authority, to impose restrictions upon the private ownership of handguns.

Not only that, Kagan drafted a memo for President Clinton suggesting a whole list of guns that could be banned by executive fiat. The Los Angeles Times reported on May 27, 2010, that: “At the time of the [1997] import ban, Jose Cerda, who worked in the domestic policy shop run by Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, said, ‘We are taking the law and bending it as far as it can to capture a whole new class of guns.’”

Combine all of this with the fact that in 1987 Elena Kagan told her boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, that she was “not sympathetic” to the plight of an African-American man who wanted to own a gun for self-protection because he carried large sums of cash when depositing money for the laundromat where he worked in Washington, D.C.

Elena Kagan will follow philosophically in the footsteps of Sonia Sotomayor. During her confirmation hearings, Americans were promised that Sotomayor believed the Heller case in 2008 established “that the Second Amendment right is an individual right.” But in the recent McDonald case, Sotomayor joined the minority in wanting to both overturn Heller and deny that the Second Amendment protects a “fundamental” right.

So, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lied her way onto the bench. And “cagey Kagan” is doing exactly the same thing. Please make sure you take action!

ACTION: The Senate Judiciary Committee will probably be voting on the Elena Kagan nomination next week — which means the proverbial ball is now rolling. So contact your Senators and urge them to oppose Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court. And please urge your family and friends to do the same.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Senators.

by John Lott

John Lott’s Website: Fox News piece that I had last week: A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote to Take Away Your Guns.

Here’s what The Washington Post reported this morning:

One of President Obama’s top legislative priorities is in serious doubt after top House Democrats’ attempt to satisfy the National Rifle Association backfired badly.

The Post says that “top Democrats abandoned plans for a Friday vote in the House” on the DISCLOSE Act after several Representatives and organizations “rose up against the deal with the NRA.”

Interestingly, the Post also reported that the intended beneficiaries of the deal — that is, the Blue Dog Democrats who were expected to drop their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act once the NRA dropped theirs — were still “spooked” by public resistance to the bill.

You can pat yourselves on the back knowing that you were a huge part of the outpouring of opposition that was generated this week. You played a big role in “spooking” the politicians who are going to be soliciting your votes in November.

You should know that the sponsors of the bill are still looking for ways to resuscitate the legislation, so GOA will continue to keep you abreast of further developments.

But for now, enjoy the victory and have a great weekend!

My husband was convicted of felony when he was a teenager and now he is older he likes to hunt we are a hunting family on both sides and they want let him have a gun the man is 40 now he is alot older now it is stupied . I think they should beable to buy a gun after so many years with out being in trouble afterwords. It’s not right to punish you all your life if you have not did nothing sence then we all have a right to bare arms!!!!!!!

If you run a blog you had better take notice. Obama will require you to file forms with all your members names if you mention public officials within 60 days of an election. Pro Obama groups like the SEIU would be exempt.

Fresh from his efforts to seize government control of the health services sector (ObamaCare) and the financial markets (“finance reform”), Barack Obama has a new priority: silence his political opposition.

As satisfying as it was for Obama to seize control of one-sixth of the economy, he has had to suffer protest from the “little people” (like us). So he is pushing the Orwellian “DISCLOSE” bill (HR 5175) to make sure gun groups and other pro-freedom forces cannot mobilize their members in the upcoming elections.

When Obama says “disclose,” what he really means is “disclose gun group membership lists”

Not surprisingly, these efforts to shut down free speech don’t apply to Obama allies, like Democratic-leaning labor unions. They only apply to groups which are not reliable Obama allies, like Gun Owners of America.

But, for those groups whose free speech is targeted for Obama’s wrath under this bill, the consequences are severe:

* Under Title II of the bill, GOA (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures — potentially including their membership lists.

* Also under Title II, GOA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

* In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here’s an idea: If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court’s defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn’t he apply his sleazy new rules to his political allies, as well?

ACTION: Please urge your congressman to vote against the anti-gun HR 5175. This bill has moved out of committee and has now been placed on the House calendar.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

I urge you to oppose HR 5175, a bill that will deny the free speech rights of all Americans. Under Title II of this bill:

* Groups like Gun Owners of America (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures — potentially including their membership lists — even though the Supreme Court has previously ruled in NAACP v. Alabama that membership lists (like those of GOA’s) are off limits to government control.

* Also, groups like GOA and the NRA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

* In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here’s an idea: If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court’s defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn’t he apply the new rules in HR 5175 to his political allies (like the labor unions), as well?

Suffice it to say, if you care anything about the First or Second Amendments, you will vote against HR 5175. GOA will be scoring this vote on their rating of Congress.

Sincerely,

Elena Kagan had a hand in multiple gun control measures during her stint in the Clinton administration, according to info from newly released Clinton library documents.

As deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council under Bill Clinton, Kagan supervised work implementing the Brady law, which implemented a background check system, info from the newly released docs show.

Kagan also worked on a 1997 executive order related to the assault weapons ban — an order that updated an earlier one prohibiting the importation of firearms not usually used for sporting purposes. And she worked on various Clinton-era poroposals to strengthen regulation of child-safety locks and to toughen up restrictions on adults from making guns too readily available to children.

Wow Obama has changed policy and told the world our TOP SECRET count of how many warheads we have ready to fire.
On the net it says Russian ICBMS can carry 432 warheads that’s only 12 missiles

If one US multi ICBM holds 500 warhead’s that’s only 10 active missiles.

And Obama is going to sign a new treaty to reduce the number even more and states that he doesn’t want us to have any warhead’s at all.

How does this deter anything?

How does this keep us safe?

We need more than this number to protect the US.

Why is Obama giving out this TOP SECRET info on how weak the US is to the world?

The United States has become the first country to disclose an up-to-date figure for the number of weapons in its nuclear arsenal. It has done so to encourage more openness from other nuclear states and to further President Barack Obama’s goal of global disarmament. The Pentagon said 5,113 warheads were either operationally deployed, kept in active reserve or held in inactive storage. On a fact sheet detailing numbers that had been classified for decades, it said that the arsenal has been reduced by 84 per cent from its maximum level of 31,225 warheads at the end of 1967. The total disclosed by the Pentagon did not include the number of warheads that have been retired and scheduled for complete dismantlement, an estimated 4,600 according to the Federation of American Scientists. The US government had only made partial announcements before, revealing it had 1,968 operational warheads at the end of last year. In 1993 it disclosed the numbers only up to 1961.

Members of a militia charged with plotting to kill police were not Christian or a militia, a man acquainted with the group said Tuesday.

Michael Lackomar, a member of the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia. “They’re really a fringe group outside of anything we do.

“They’re more of a private army or a terrorist organization or really just a criminal organization.”

Lackomar said that five Hutaree members sought refuge over the weekend with a Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia leader because federal authorities were looking for them. Lackomar said the member of his militia advised the Hutaree members to turn themselves in so no one would get hurt.

A federal grand jury in Detroit, Michigan, indicted six Michigan residents, two Ohioans and an Indiana resident on charges of seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction(pipe bombs), teaching the use of explosive materials(pipe bombs) and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, said U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade and Andrew Arena, FBI special agent in charge.

The group were arrested before a crime was committed and before any pipe bombs were even built.

Basically they were arrested for making plans to commit a crime on the Internet. And since they owned a gun they were charged with having a gun while committing a crime.

Many believe this is the start of Obama’s plans for a new gun control push.

Another Judge that needs to be impeached.

Yesterday, federal district court judge Ricardo Urbina ruled that a DC ordinance banning pistols holding more than ten rounds was constitutional and did not violate the right to bear arms.

After the Supreme Court in 2008 struck down DC’s categorical ban on functional firearms in the home, the city reacted by passing a series of ordinances that it called “Reasonable Regulations.” Basically, in DC, it is currently legal to have a pistol not capable of holding more than ten rounds, in the home, unloaded and either disassembled or with a trigger lock.

Dick Heller, the only plaintiff to make it to the United States Supreme Court in the landmark Heller case, sued the city of DC again over its new regulations, challenging the registration and licensing scheme and the ban on weapons holding more than ten rounds. It is not known why Heller failed to challenge the ordinance requiring weapons to be unloaded and disassembled or locked away.

Judge Urbina, a Clinton appointee, upheld the DC regulations as protecting DC’s “compelling” governmental interest in public safety. He reached this result by refusing to apply a “strict scrutiny” standard of review to the right to keep arms, and instead applying an intermediate standard of review. The difference between the two is significant. A strict scrutiny standard of review is almost always fatal to a government regulation, as the government must prove that the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. Failing such a showing, the law will be held unconstitutional. Intermediate review, on the other hand requires only a showing that the regulation is substantially related to an important governmental interest for the regulation to be upheld. As one might expect, this is a much lighter burden for the government. In the words of Judge Urbina, the lower standard of review permits the government to “paint with a broader brush” when imposing restrictions upon a civil right.

see story here

Now remember this is a new agency that just bought these guns. A total waste of money. Its my opinion they should not even be armed.

But now the fed is arming the IRS and the FDA so how many guns were lost by them we will never know.

289 new firearms were lost.

DHS had nearly 190,000 weapons in its inventory as of last summer, the report said. All bought from 2005 through 2008. Why does this agency need to be armed? All they do is send out reports to local police.

Lets face it the entire agency is a joke and should be eliminated. It was a mistake to create it.

http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_10-41_Jan10.pdf

Liberal sets his home on fire with the wife and kids in side and crashes his plane into a IRS building.

Wrote on his website about the IRS and complained that he did not have free obama care and complained about our type of government looks like he wanted the socialist system.

full story here

In what appears to have been his suicide note, Stack is believed to have written:

“If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?’ The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time…

“Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer…

“I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well,” the note, dated Thursday, reads..

 Claims GM GM executives commided unthinkable atrocities. A clear liber argument when the real problem was that the Unions broke the GM company and the fed bailed out the Union who now runs the company.

He then makes the Liberal Obma type claims that “American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, ”
Nonesence.

Click here to read the “manifesto” that was published on Stack’s Web site.

The department of Homeland Security as usual announced it was not terrorism before anyone even knew what was gong on. What a joke this agency is it should be disbanded its a waste of money the FBI could do everything they do and we do not need a political agency that sends out press releases telling us that terrorism is not involved when they know nothing about the event

Belleville, NJ –(AmmoLand.com)- For decades, gun owners have known intuitively that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a pre-existing right to self-preservation and was enshrined in our Constitution as a safety valve to ward off a tyrannical form of government.

That right has been under attack since the agency we know today as the ATF brought a case to the Supreme Court in the 1930’s which was interpreted to imply that the Second Amendment was a ‘collective’ right. That assault continued through the 1950’s as the specter of socialism, known today under its more innocuous term ‘liberalism’ began challenging a personal rights interpretation in favor of ‘collective’ rights which are dispensed by the government.

Then, came the 1960’s. Woodstock. JFK. RFK. Martin Luther King, Jr. Malcolm X. A cultural sea-change and series of assassinations caused a kneejerk reaction culminating in the 1968 Gun Control Act, which was to be the last compromise intended to allegedly prevent gun trafficking and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Suffice to say, that social experiment and its attendant philosophy has been a promethean failure, judging from the immediate spike and steady increase in violent crime on a national basis we’ve experienced since then.

Why am I reminding you of this history? Simple.

Recently, a case before the Supreme Court in Heller vs. DC established legally what we’ve known all along. The Second Amendment is a personal right, just like the right to free worship, free speech, privacy and other liberties we hold dear. It was a win, but just barely, and only a first step.

Soon, a case will again be heard by the Supreme Court, which if decided in our favor, will overturn decades of anti-gun rhetoric and place gun laws such as seen in states like New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and elsewhere in direct violation of the personal rights we have to protect ourselves against crime. It will sweep away decades of useless and in fact dangerous “gun control” laws which have done nothing but encourage violent crime and place Americans in danger.

In short, all our cards are on the table. This case is the last straw. And the outcome is far from a foregone conclusion. In the Heller vs. DC case, though we won, it was only by the narrowest of margins, far too close for comfort. The present composition of the Supreme Court is such that the uniqueness of our American form of government which recognizes and is supposed to protect personal liberties has been tainted by the notion that our Constitution should be measured by an international standard. Call it ‘legal collectivism’ if you’d like.

This administration is no friend to gun rights. Just because America hasn’t heard anything about another Assault Weapon Ban or other incremental legislation doesn’t mean that our liberty can’t be sold up the river by back-door dealing. All it takes is for the administration to sign off on a UN Small Arms treaty or regulate our right out of existence through taxation, trumped-up environmental concerns or other schemes to steal your liberty. The most recent State Of The Union address should indicate to you that this government does not have a single concern about you as an individual.

Liberty is always under threat from legislation, regulation, elitism or multinationalism. In other words, tyranny in any form.

Yet for some reason, gun owners are still sitting back in hinterland America waiting to see what happens, instead of being the Patriots we need right now and taking the initiative to make things happen. The Second Amendment March needs every one of you out on the mall in DC to make a statement. Two hundred fifty years ago, Americans left their farms and families to fight in a hopeless cause. For some reason, we contemporary Americans seem to think our time is too valuable or the risk greater than it was when Thomas Paine described the ‘summer soldier.’

At the Second Amendment March, we’ve heard every excuse imaginable for why people can’t manage to show up in DC such as “it’s too expensive”, “it’s too far”, “it’s too short a notice”, and a whole list of other silly excuses. But everyone grumbles when another anti-gun law or regulation is proposed. Now is the time to grumble in Washington DC. The timing of our march is critical because it happens as the case of McDonald vs. IL is being decided. If the case goes our way, it’s freedom. If not, it will signal an era of darkness and the sun will set on that dream which was America.

We’re in the last battle of a very long war against our rights. This is it. All our chips are on the table, the cards are dealt and we need to be out in force showing our government that we’re mad and we’re not going to take it anymore.

If ever there were a time for gun owners to get off our butts and mobilize, now is the time.

Though our Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be swayed by popular sentiment, if those justices who side with multilateralism to decide our rights are prepared to ignore the Original Intent of our founders and subjugate the Constitution to international opinion, our presence should persuade them otherwise.

Every voice is important. If you think you can’t make a difference, then the enemies of freedom have already won. The alarm bell is ringing. Time to wake up, America. The bell tolls for you.

Violence Policy Center “Blacks Should Have Reduced Gun Rights”
Whatever the VPC’s intent may be, the gun control group indirectly concludes that black communities must be disarmed.

reinstate the black codes/

Washington, DC – -(Pajamasmedia.com)- The Violence Policy Center (VPC) — the anti-gun rights group that Barack Obama repeatedly voted to fund while he was a director of the Joyce Foundation — believes that African-Americans are too violent to deserve the entire Constitution.

Blacks in the United States are disproportionately affected by homicide. For the year 2007, blacks represented 13 percent of the nation’s population, yet accounted for 49 percent of all homicide victims.

As noted at the beginning of this study, the devastation homicide inflicts on black teens and adults is a national crisis, yet it is all too often ignored outside of affected communities.

For blacks, like all victims of homicide, guns — usually handguns — are far and away the number one murder tool. Successful efforts to reduce America’s black homicide toll must put a focus on reducing access to firearms.

For an organization to make a public declaration that suggests an entire race be denied the same level of constitutional protections as others is both shocking and bewildering. The study received financing from left-wing groups dedicated to social engineering, including the David Bohnett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Public Welfare Foundation.

The goal of the Violence Policy Center in this report is the goal of the group in every report it has ever issued: an erosion of gun rights for all Americans, with the ultimate goal being the prohibition of all firearms save those under state control.

Towards that totalitarian end, the VPC does not seem to have any qualms about advocating a return to racist policies that left African-American communities helpless targets for most of a century.

Nor does Sugarman or his group explain how disarming law-abiding blacks will make them anything other than victims for those that refuse to follow existing prohibitions against murder…..

Whatever the VPC’s intent may be, the gun control group indirectly concludes that black communities must be disarmed.

Calls to limit the access of African-Americans to firearms specifically echo the “black codes” adopted immediately at the end of the Civil War. These laws were passed in southern states in response to the Thirteenth Amendment’s outlawing of slavery, and were specifically engineered to circumscribe the civil rights and liberties of newly freed slaves and freemen. The codes assured the second-class status of African-Americans, and were a forerunner to decades of “separate but equal” segregation under Jim Crow laws — which were only overcome during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Among the codes commonly passed were laws that forbid or restricted the ownership of firearms by African-Americans. The codes were “justified” with the explanation that African-Americans did not have the same rights as white citizens.

The Ku Klux Klan and similar groups were active in attempting to disarm blacks in the post-war South, and United States v. Cruikshank gave paramilitary racist mobs carte blanche to disarm African-American communities. This left them nearly defenseless to decades of lynchings, assaults, indignity, and, in several dozen instances, full-fledged “race riots” that are more accurately described as massacres. Most of these rampages occurred with the full knowledge of local and state governments. The 1898 Wilmington race riot was carried out with the full knowledge and indifference of both North Carolina Governor Daniel Lindsay Russell and President William McKinley.

One can only hope that Josh Sugarman, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, is completely ignorant of the many mob actions and the thousands of deaths that resulted from laws that stripped African-Americans of their rights and liberties. Considering his long-running and strident anti-gun advocacy, it seems likely that Sugarman and the organization are well aware of history but made a political calculation in asking that African-Americans be disarmed.

The goal of the Violence Policy Center in this report is the goal of the group in every report it has ever issued: an erosion of gun rights for all Americans, with the ultimate goal being the prohibition of all firearms save those under state control. Towards that totalitarian end, the VPC does not seem to have any qualms about advocating a return to racist policies that left African-American communities helpless targets for most of a century. Nor does Sugarman or his group explain how disarming law-abiding blacks will make them anything other than victims for those that refuse to follow existing prohibitions against murder.

The BATF engaged in mafia tactics in running a criminal conspiracy to shut down a gun show in Austin Texas, the Alex Jones Show heard Monday, direct from the man embroiled at the center of the Obama administration’s latest savage attack on the second amendment.

The Obama administration is the most anti-Second Amendment administration is U.S. history.

Following the staged arrest of a man by the Austin Police — subsequently released without charge — the BATF pressured lease holders HEB to shut down the oldest gun show in central Texas.

As revealed Monday on The Alex Jones Show, the BATF called the original meeting regarding the gun show and used threats and intimidation to shut down the event.

Darwin Boedeker of Texas Gun Shows provided details of the criminal conspiracy by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (abbreviated ATF) and the Austin police to shut down the show last week.

On Thursday, January 14, Mr. Boedeker was asked to meet with representatives of the ATF and Austin police at a building in Austin used for police interviews and interrogations. In addition to Boedeker, the two hour meeting included the participation of HEB, an Austin grocery retailer. HEB holds the lease on the building where the Texas Gun Shows events are held on the third week of every month.

Police, under the direction of ATF, told Boedeker he would be required to follow their “recommendations” or they would close down his event. Boedeker said he was told “you do what we say or we shut you down.” He said the ultimatum was recorded by the police and ATF.

Mr. Boedeker indicated enforcing the ATF recommendations would destroy his business. He said he would not issue a public notice unless it indicated the so-called recommendations were issued by the Austin Police and the ATF.

In order to make their case, the ATF and APD cited numerous alleged criminal cases associated with a previous gun show organizer. Mr. Boedeker said the ATF and APD did not seem aware that he is not associated with previous gun show events at the location.

Boedeker said he is far down on the “totem pole” of gun show events and he believes this is why the police under the direction of the ATF engaged in criminal racketeering against him.

Boedeker’s flier issued under government coercion and the demand of the event center building lease holder states:

“At the direction of the Austin Police Department and the The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms anyone selling a firearm at this show location will be asked to comply with the following: 1. Any person selling a personal firearm must go through a licensed FFL Dealer in the show to transfer the firearm to the new owner. 2. Selling of Firearms in the parking lot will not be permitted. Thank you for your cooperation!”

From this site

When in New York, anytime someone is carrying a gun – legal or not – the mentality is ‘look, a killer!’ and it’s especially bad when the incident happens at an airport. That’s what happened to Glenn, and he tells the story of what happened when the TSA worker found out Glenn had a gun and that he wasn’t a cop.

Full story here

The Right of the People to Keep and
Bear Arms: The Common Law
Tradition Full story here. A must read.

Weatherup insists that the English right conveyed “no recognition of any personal right to bear arms on the part of subjects generally” but merely granted members of the militia the right to “keep and bear arms in accordance with their militia duties.” [124] Such an interpretation ignores the clear language of the English right and disregards the accompanying historic record. The militia was certainly of grave concern to members of the Convention Parliament, but this was not because members of the militia had been disarmed. Quite the contrary. The militia was a problem because the Militia Act of 1662 had permitted its officers wide latitude to disarm law-abiding citizens. The correction of this abuse and many others that preoccupied the members required new legislation

IE the 2nd amd. does not give the militia the right to have arms but it says that because we have a militia the people have a right to protect themselves from it.

The Whig members of the Convention had pressed hard for a collective as well as an individual right [128] and the first version of the arms article adhered to their view that the public should be armed to protect their rights:

It is necessary for the publick Safety, that the Subjects which are Protestants, should provide and keep Arms for their common Defence. And that the Arms which have been seized, and taken from them, be restored. [129]
The second version of this article retreated somewhat from this stance. It stated:

That the Subjects, which are Protestants, may provide and keep Arms, for their common Defence. [130]

If one applies English rights and practice to the construction of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is clear that the Amendment’s first clause is an amplifying rather than a qualifying clause, and that a general rather than a select militia was intended. In fact, every American colony formed a militia that, like its English model, comprised all able-bodied male citizens. [166] This continued to be the practice when the young republic passed its first uniform militia act under its new constitution in 1792. [167] Such a militia implied a people armed and trained to arms.

The Second Amendment should properly be read to extend to every citizen the right to have arms for personal defense. This right was a legacy of the English, whose right to have arms was, at base, as much a personal right as a collective duty. It is significant that the American right to keep arms was unfettered, unlike the English right, which was limited in various ways throughout its development.

Thus, in guaranteeing the individual right to keep and bear arms, and the collective right to maintain a general militia, the Second Amendment amplified the tradition of the English Bill of Rights for the purpose of preserving and protecting government by and for the people.

A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a Wisconsin man barred from owning firearms because of his criminal record, ruling the lifetime prohibition may violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights and calling into question the future of a 13-year old gun control law.

In a 3-0 decision on Wednesday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a trial judge to take a second look at the evidence that a 1996 federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is constitutional in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that emphasized “the individual right to possess and carry weapons.”

This case involves a man named Steven Skoien, who previously had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery. A year later, a Winchester 12-gauge hunting shotgun was discovered in a truck parked outside his home, along with evidence (including an orange hunting jacket, a deer carcass, and a state-issued tag for a deer kill) that he had used it earlier in the day. He was charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

this is one of the first appeals court cases to take an in-depth look at the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in D.C. v. Heller on existing federal firearms laws. It’s true that Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion said: “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill…”

But misdemeanors are different from felonies, which the Seventh Circuit noted: “We therefore assume that Skoien’s Second Amendment rights are intact notwithstanding his misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction.” The judges said that the ownership ban is life-long and sweeping, providing no way for a now-peaceable citizen to seek an exception: “The government has the burden of establishing a reasonable fit between its important interest in reducing domestic gun violence and the means chosen to advance that interest — Section 922(g)(9)’s total disarmament of domestic-violence misdemeanants.” (What they didn’t point out, but could have, is that a law enacted in 1996 is not exactly “longstanding.”)

more here

Attorney General Holder revealed his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person’s name to the terror watch list.

Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we now know:

•Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases with those records permanently retained by and shared among law enforcement.

•Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.

AGl Holder said: “The position of the Administration is that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share information about gun purchases.” “… [It's not] inconsistent to allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information, for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement.” “It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons.” {Emphasis added}

Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that “a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.” Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster the wife of one of the soldiers shot was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband “still scheduled for deployment in January” to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?” — It is hard to believe that we don’t trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army’s ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.

The anti gun nuts think this shows that we should ban the gun used but the anti gun nuts caused this problem by creating a gun free zone. This was one of the problems with Bush he did not undo all the bad things that Clinton did.

Obama says he will stop this but do you really think ghe will remove the gun free zone or will he try to ban the gun that was used.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/john-lott-ft-hood-end-gun-free-zone/

Gun control advocates in this country know they are losing the hearts and minds of more and more Americans every day. Poll after poll has shown that support for gun control is at an all time low, repeatedly their agenda has been defeated in the courts, and pro-gun laws are still sweeping the country.

Ever since the “assault weapons ban” (AWB) sunset in 2004, they have been waiting for the right moment to try to get it restated. Now, five years later, some think they have that chance thanks to the Ft. Hood shooting. The fact that what have been arbitrarily defined as “assault weapons” by these activists were’t even used in this shooting is immaterial, this incident is little more than a means to an end for them.

They’ve already seized on reports that a FN Five-Seven pistol was used by Nidal Hasan, the killer at Ft. Hood who is being called a domestic terrorist by some. The Five-Seven was targeted by gun control groups right around the time that the AWB sunset as the latest demon gun that needed to be banned because it had armor piercing ammunition. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claimed to have successfully penetrated a bulletproof vest using the gun. While it is true that armor piercing ammunition does exist for the pistol, it is only available to law enforcement or military personnel. Whether Hasan had that kind of ammunition has not been released. What Brady forgot to tell you was that they used the second thinnest vest on the market, one that can be penetrated by many common handguns.

But this isn’t about truth, it is about agenda. Ever since they were invented there have been people who wanted to ban guns. Mass shootings in countries where guns have been banned tell us those bans don’t accomplish much other than to ensure that if someone does go on a rampage there is nobody there to stop them. Most mass shooting have one thing in common, they are ended at the barrel of a gun when someone is able to fight fire with fire.

An article posted after the Ft. Hood attacks highlights the illogic being used by the gun grabbers. Louis Klarevas, a Professor in the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, wrote an article called It’s the Guns, Stupid: Why Handguns Remain One of the Biggest Threats To Homeland Security. Part of his argument on why we are so stupid contains the following:

Think of this simple fact. According to the U.S. government’s National Counter-Terrorism Center, over 50% of the 11,770 terrorist attacks that occurred worldwide last year involved armed attacks. Most prominent among these attacks was the siege in Mumbai, India, which claimed 173 lives (including six Americans).

I no longer wonder “if” a Mumbai-style attack will occur in the U.S. Absent the implementation of serious gun control measures, I now ask “when”?

http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d9-Gun-control-advocates-using-Ft-Hood-as-smoking-gun

After a decade and a half of pushing unsuccessfully to secure America’s support for a legally-binding, international instrument to regulate the marketing, transfer and brokering in firearms, they are now on the brink of success. The process of formally negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (“ATT”) now has Washington’s seal of approval; announced October 14th by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

We have a president, a secretary of state, and an undersecretary philosophically in synch with the UN and its member nations who have been clamoring for the US to join the march to an ATT. In her statement of October 14th announcing Washington’s reversal on this issue, Clinton made not even passing or indirect reference to the Constitution, much less the Second Amendment; a position so clearly and forcefully employed by Bolton when defending our interests against the international “community.”

The real agenda of these folks at the UN, and in London, Tokyo, Brasilia, and the other capitals around the world of nations pushing the US to “come on board,” is not international regulation, but limiting the freedom we enjoy within the United States to keep and bear arms.

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2009/10/26/%E2%80%9Cperfect-storm%E2%80%9D-for-un-gun-control-agenda/?cxntfid=blogs_bob_barr_blog

GOA has received a report from a very well-known journalist at a big newspaper that the FBI and BATFE are teaming up together to get off-the-record information on gun owners. The project, known as Vigilant Eagle, involves federal agents going to gun stores and doing “meet and greets” with shop owners in the hopes of obtaining informal information on people buying guns.

If you are a shop owner who is contacted by the FBI or BATFE as part of this program — or if you are a gun owner who becomes aware that this program is going on in your area — please contact GOA by going to http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=newticket and giving us the details of what you know. The journalist wants to run a story exposing Vigilant Eagle to the entire country.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Yesterday, another radical extremist joined the ranks of the Obama administration.

Cass Sunstein, who is an old friend of Barack Obama, is now our new Regulatory Czar. You will recall that he is the guy who wants animals to sue hunters and other Americans.

He also supports gun control.

While his nomination as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs passed the Senate by a 57-40 vote yesterday, the REAL vote was actually much closer — losing only by three votes.

That vote occurred on Wednesday, when Republicans tried to kill his nomination using a filibuster — a procedure which required Democrats to muster 60 votes. Every Democrat (except for three) voted for Sunstein. The three Senators who voted against Sunstein on the filibuster were Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and James Webb (D-VA).

Unfortunately, a handful of Republicans crossed party lines to help Sunstein overcome the procedural roadblock. The Republican traitors who crossed party lines on Wednesday were Senators Bob Bennett (UT), Sue Collins (ME), Judd Gregg (NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Richard Lugar (IN) and Olympia Snowe (ME).

Dishonorable mention goes to Republican-turned-Democrat Senator Arlen Specter (PA) who voted for Sunstein — as well as Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), who waited until the end of the voting period to finally cast his ballot against Sunstein.

Regarding Pryor, you will remember that in August, he waited until the last minute to cast his vote in favor of the concealed carry reciprocity amendment. When it became clear the anti-gunners had a comfortable margin of victory, Sen. Pryor actually switched his vote at the last minute.

The cloture vote on Wednesday — ending the filibuster on Sunstein — was 63-35. You can see how your two Senators voted on the filibuster and on final passage by going to http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes on the GOA website.

As the Regulatory Czar, Sunstein will provide the final touches on new federal regulations. No firearm or ammunition needs to be banned outright — that would be too transparent. As the coauthor of Nudge (2008), Sunstein has already laid out how “choice architects” should carefully guide (or nudge) Americans into making better choices.

So with a little regulation here… a little regulation there… Sunstein can strengthen the iron fist of the federal gun police (otherwise known as the BATFE). Or, he can implement additional federal requirements which will result in firearm and ammunition manufacturers paying more for their merchandise.

Of course, these costs will be passed on to the consumer as new “taxes” that will “nudge” Americans away from purchasing firearms or engaging in the shooting sports.

In short, be prepared for more “change” from Washington and less spare change in your pockets.

In a story on La tax free holiday the biased Violence Policy Center atacked Louisiana again.

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., pointed out that Louisiana has the highest gun death rate of any state in the nation — 19.58 deaths per 100,000 people, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from 2006, the most recent figures available.

In its 2008 score card of states, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ranked Louisiana last in the nation, tied with Kentucky and Oklahoma, for what the gun-control group calls “sensible gun laws.”

What they dont tell you is that they rigged the data. They include deaths from criminals being killed while commiting a crime by home owners and cops.

BATON ROUGE – Today, Governor Bobby Jindal highlighted the first day of the first annual “Louisiana Second Amendment Weekend Sales Tax Holiday” that runs from Friday through Sunday, Sept. 6th.

Governor Jindal said, “This is a great opportunity for our hunters to get the equipment they need for enjoying Louisiana’s great outdoors – especially as we open dove season this weekend. This weekend-long sales tax holiday on hunting gear and accessories not only helps boost sales at local sports stores and hunting suppliers, but also encourages more folks to get outside and see why Louisiana is Sportsman’s Paradise.”

Act 453 of the Regular Session of the 2009 Louisiana Legislature signed by the Governor provides a three-day exemption from state and local sales and use taxes on consumer purchases of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. This is an annual sales tax holiday that will occur each year on the first consecutive Friday through Sunday in September – starting with this weekend in 2009.

According to statute, during this sales tax holiday weekend, the sales and use tax levied by the state and its political subdivisions shall not apply to any consumer purchases of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. The Annual Louisiana Second Amendment Weekend Holiday Act became effective July 9, 2009.

“All of us hunters are getting excited about the upcoming season,” said LDWF Secretary Robert Barham, “and this tax-free weekend on hunting supplies is certainly coming at just the right time. This weekend presents new hunters with the opportunity to pick up the essentials, and experienced hunters to purchase gear they might have been putting off buying.”

The state and local sales and use tax exemption applies to an individual’s purchase of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. The sales and use tax exemption is not available for business purchases. Consumer purchases do not include the purchase of animals for hunting.

The Violence Policy Center has again used its rigged false gun death data to atack Louisiana over this law. You see the Violence Policy Center doesn’t like the fact we have no gun control in La and we can shoot carjackers and people who break into our homes so they count the death of all criminals shot by cops and home owners and claim they are gun acidents.

It’s safe to say that there is not a single outrageous anti-gun position Ted Kennedy has failed to support in his long career. He has voted to ban semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. He has attempted to make it a federal crime to purchase more than two handguns in a year.

Kennedy proposed his “Personal Safety Firearms Act of 1973.”

Taking to the Senate floor, Kennedy claimed: “Gun control laws in the United States are woefully inadequate. In our vast society guns should have no reasonable role.” (Emphasis added.) This was Kennedy’s voice “30, 40 years ago.”

That same voice contemptuously dismissed the right that the Founding Fathers recognized and sought to protect for future generations of Americans”the right to own and possess arms for self-defense, for hunting, for simple personal enjoyment.

“For the American family in 1973, fear, apprehension, mistrust, anguish and pain are the dreaded products of our firearms history,” Kennedy claimed.

Summarizing his bill for his col-leagues, Kennedy said it would require:

“First, the registration of every civilian-owned gun in this country. Second, it will require all gun owners to pass stringent qualifying procedures to legally possess a gun and, third, it bans the domestic output of all hand-held firearms that are not designed for sporting purposes.”

Kennedy’s fellow senators understood differently, however, and soundly rejected his legislation on a 78-11 vote.

Undaunted, Kennedy continued to charge full steam ahead. In 1979, his constant efforts to abolish our Right to Keep and Bear Arms brought him to the attention of the Senate Ethics Committee.

The committee unanimously rebuked Kennedy for improperly using Senate stationery to write fund-raising letters for gun-ban groups that included the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

It’s safe to say that there is not a single outrageous anti-gun position Ted Kennedy has failed to support in his long career. He has voted to ban semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. He has attempted to make it a federal crime to purchase more than two handguns in a year. He has proposed 21-day waiting periods on all gun purchases. He has made several attempts to ban centerfire hunting ammunition.

He was also a staunch opponent of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Why? Because, in his words, “It seems to validate the role of firearms as an acceptable and attractive part of our daily life.”

When his gun and ammunition bans failed, Sen. Kennedy fought tooth and nail to protect the gun control lobby’s schemes to bankrupt the American firearm industry. And don”t think that the gun confiscations from law-abiding citizens in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina troubled Kennedy in the least. He was one of only 16 senators to vote against the NRA-backed “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act” that became federal law on Oct. 9, 2006. The “Not Sweet 16,” as we have labeled them, also included Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

(experts from NRA page here)

I know there’s an old adage that one shouldn’t speak ill of the dead.
But I don’t subscribe to the idea that when evil and foolish people die we should pretend they were something other than evil and foolish.

And Ted Kennedy was evil and foolish.

He wasn’t just a politician with whom I disagreed.

He was a rotten man – a wicked man.

I know you’re not hearing this from the rest of the press. I know you’re not even hearing this from his worst critics. But if we can’t call Ted Kennedy wicked and immoral, those terms have lost all meaning.

It’s no secret I didn’t like Ted Kennedy.

I believe his political epitaph should have been written July 18, 1969, the day his behavior led directly to the untimely death of Mary Jo Kopechne at the Chappaquiddick Bridge.

Until that moment, as the surviving brother of an assassinated president and an assassinated senator-presidential candidate, he had been an object of love and pity for an entire nation.

Over four decades he has served as a kind of “enemy within” the American political system – attempting to elicit the support of the Soviet Union against President Reagan’s policies in the 1980s, ignoring the tax-cutting prescription of his elder brother, failing to learn the real lessons of Vietnam, failing even to learn the lessons of his own brother’s errors of appeasement in the Bay of Pigs, practicing his own unique brand of plantation racism and blaming America for all the problems of the world. That’s Ted Kennedy.

That even one of the 50 states would deem him worthy of serving in the U.S. Senate for most of his life is something of a national disgrace.

Nevertheless, maybe because of his alcohol-addled brain or his unfulfilled ego, occasionally Ted Kennedy has demonstrated a kind of candor that is in short supply in Washington.

It may have been intellectual frustration that caused Kennedy to admit what he was 14 years ago – and what he remained until his death.

Ted Kennedy always was a socialist – and he actually admitted it on the floor of the Senate Jan. 20, 1995.

I’ve never seen this revelation before, though it has been a matter of public record all these years – published, as it were, in the Congressional Record. I was amazed to find it in a book by Republican political consultant Marc Nuttle called “Moment of Truth.”

Here is how the Kennedy admission came about.

Economist Milton Friedman was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of a national constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Kennedy argued that a requirement for a balanced budget would restrict the federal government’s power and its ability to spend – thus, he said, Washington’s role in more fairly and equitably distributing wealth, goods and services.

“Senator, socialism hasn’t worked in 6,000 years of recorded history,” explained Friedman. “Why won’t you give up on it?”

Kennedy rose to his feet, according to Nuttle, who attended the hearing, and replied: “It hasn’t worked in 6,000 years of recorded history because it didn’t have me to run it.”

Full story here

Surely Kennedy was not as skillful and sophisticated in articulating his position as some other politicians. Surely Kennedy, with his comfortable, unchallenged position as the senior senator from Massachusetts, didn’t need to be so tactful. Surely even Kennedy avoided, for the most part, such heated admissions that he believes socialism can work under the right kind of skillful leadership – namely his.

But I’m not going to forget that admission today – the day after his death.

I’m not going to forget the way he unashamedly promoted abortion on demand.

I’m not going to forget the way he attempted to aid and abet our enemies to further his own political ambitions.

I’m not going to forget the way he betrayed his own older brother’s political legacy of anti-communism and free-market economics to lead his party, and very possibly his country, off the cliff.

I’m not going to forget the idiotic way he characterized Ronald Reagan’s brilliant initiative for strategic missile defense as “Star Wars.”

I’m not going to forget how he always blamed America and Americans first for every problem in the world.

I’m not going to forget the way he left Mary Jo Kopechne alive in a car underwater where she survived, according to the coroner’s report, for up to three hours, while he showered, shaved and sobered up before alerting police to his reckless, homicidal driving.

Yes democrats are at it again. Having lost touch with America and believing that everyone loved Ted they will rename the rotten health care bill after him thinking this will get it passed.

Problem is people know who Kennedy was and they know he was a anti gun socialist.

So now we will have the.

Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick health care system.
So we can all get the same health care that Ted gave Mary jo when he drove her in the Chappaquiddick and walked away and didn’t tell anyone till the next day.

We are real sorry that he died but don’t make up lies about how great he was.

For us Ted was not someone to honor he was a .
Anti gun nut,A drunk, A murder, A socialist & A traitor who made trips to the USSR during the cold war and told them he would work against Reagon .

History will remember that his last act was to try and stop the voters from electing a new senator by trying to change the law so one could be appointed.

This man was a major part of what is wrong with DC.

Obama’s pick is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is currently on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District. There she has racked up an anti-Second Amendment record and has displayed contempt for the rule of law under the Constitution.

The Heller decision put the Supreme Court in support of the
Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power (as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into counter-attack mode against the Heller decision.

Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. As she and her cohorts claimed, the Supreme Court has not yet incorporated the states under the Second Amendment. Until then, she believes, the Second only applies to the District of Columbia.

This is pure judicial arrogance — something Sotomayor relishes (as long as she is one of the ruling judges). In fact, protection of the right to keep and bear arms was a major objective for enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, as recently freed slaves were being disarmed and terrorized in their neighborhoods.

But Sotomayor disdains this important right of individuals, as indicated by an earlier opinion from 2004. In United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she stated that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s. Fox Cable News reported yesterday that in her senior thesis at Princeton University, she wrote that America has a “deadly obsession” with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to
firearms ownership.

Sotomayor’s Second Amendment views go hand in hand with her politically correct views on the law and the role of judges.

In a speech given at Duke University in 2005, she made it abundantly clear that judges are involved in making policy. Realizing that this did not sound very judicial (even though most judges act on this basis), Sotomayor tried to laugh off her brazen admission: “I know this is on tape and I should never say that, [audience laughing], because we don’t
make law — I know. Um, okay. I know, I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it.” The audience continued to laugh. They got the joke.

But Sotomayor’s joke will be on us and our liberties if she gets confirmed to the Supreme Court. And that is why we need to start contacting our Senators early and often, urging them to vote against this dangerous nomination.

ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message.

In a recent news release, the credibility-challenged VPC proclaimed, “Pro-Gun States Lead the Nation in Per Capita Firearm Death Rates.” The news release goes on to say, “The analysis (of data from the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and New York.”

The VPC dares not look at the bottom seven states instead of the arbitrary five. That is because, lo and behold, New Hampshire ranks seventh from the bottom in per capita gun deaths. New Hampshire is undeniably a strong pro-gun state that greatly respects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

New Hampshire is beaten only by sixth-place Connecticut, the home of “Gun Valley,” a major area of gun making in the United States. For that matter, all of New England is in the bottom 12. Low rates of gun deaths in New England are more attributable to the culture and character of the region than to the availability of firearms. By contrast, the West is still somewhat wild and the South has not fully lost its rebel yell.

The VPC also has to purposely limit its selectively picked data to states rather than cities. This is because the one jurisdiction with the strictest gun control in the entire nation is the District of Columbia. In D.C., all handguns are banned, long arms must be stored disassembled, locked and unloaded, and law-abiding citizens have no right to carry guns. According to the same 2005 CDC data relied upon by the VPC, D.C. has the highest rate of shooting deaths of any place in the United States! The district has well over double the national average.

The VPC also conveniently fails to mention that the total number of shooting deaths in the entire United States is ever so slightly over one hundredth of 1 percent — .0103 percent to be exact, and that is with approximately 250 million guns in the country. Additionally, those are all firearm deaths, including police shootings, justifiable self defense and suicide.

The reason for the VPC’s new propaganda push is obvious, and the group unknowingly reveals it in the news release. The group is scared “to death” of the very real possibility of a Supreme Court victory in June for the Second Amendment in the celebrated Heller case.

Ironically, the Heller case is a challenge to the very D.C. anti-gun law ignored by the VPC. VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, “Blind allegiance to the Second Amendment comes at a deadly price. Many residents in pro-gun states cheer the possibility of a June Supreme Court ruling that could place gun controls across the nation at risk, never realizing that those states stand as proof of the need for such laws.”

Well, unfortunately for the VPC agenda, the District of Columbia torpedoes its glorification of anti-gun laws; and New Hampshire stands as granite counter-proof that there is no need for such laws.

http://www.unionleader.com/

Obama visits Mexico and promised to listen to other countries uit would e nice if he would listed to americans and the Tea parties but he doesnt care about Americans since he was not born here.

Obama is now pushing a gun control treaty INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS

If ratified and the U.S. is found not to be in compliance with any provisions of the treaty — such as a provision that would outlaw reloading ammunition without a government license — President Obama would be empowered to implement regulations without Congressional approval.

As Wyoming Senator John Barasso pointed out in a recent trip to El Paso, Texas: “Why would you disarm someone when they potentially could get caught in the crossfire?… The United States will not surrender our second-amendment rights for Mexico’s border problem.”

President Obama disagrees and he continues to spread the myth about how many guns recovered in Mexico come from the U.S. “More than 90% of the guns found in Mexico are not bought [in Mexico], but in the United States,” he said.

William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott set the record straight and debunked “the 90% number” in a FOXNews.com report: “It’s just not true,” they said. According to their report, the real number is closer to 17%.

In other words, the Obama administration is pushing to disarm law-abiding Americans based on a massive misinformation campaign.

So how are the cartels armed if firearms are not pouring across the U.S. border? Keeping in mind that the cartels control BILLIONS of dollars, La Jeunesse and Lott shed some light on how they obtain the overwhelming majority of their guns:

– The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

– Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

– South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

– Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

– The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

– Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America’s cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.

In addition, despite efforts to clean up the system, corruption in the Mexican government is rampant. An article in the New York Times late last year noted that, “One of Mexico’s most notorious drug cartels made huge cash payments to officials in the Mexican attorney general’s office in exchange for confidential information on anti-drug operations… the cartel might have had an informant inside the American embassy.”

The bribes ranged from $150,000 to $450,000 each. Clearly, these gangs have the resources not only to buy firearms by the planeload, but they can buy the planes, too! Politicians on both sides of the border seem to ignore that they’re dealing with multi-billion dollar criminal organizations that will always be able to get firearms.

One would think that Mexico President Felipe Calderón and Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora would have their hands full cleaning up a huge mess in their own country, but they’re not too busy to meddle in U.S. affairs.

As the Times noted in an article that coincided with Obama’s Mexico trip, “Mexican officials have repeatedly called on the United States to clamp down on the flow of weapons and are likely to bring it up again with President Obama on Thursday.”

Mr. Mora even lectured that “The Second Amendment was never meant to arm foreign criminal groups.”

American office holders should be more concerned about upholding their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution than kowtowing to “blame America first” foreign politicians.

See full story.

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced—and of those, 90 percent—5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover—were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

So, instead of 90% of guns traced to the US, it’s 83% NOT traceable to the US.

You’ve heard this shocking “fact” before—on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that “there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.”

In fact, it’s not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

False Fake data has been generated by the Obama government to push gun control,

So instead of 90% of the guns having come from the US the truth is 83% did not come from the US.

— And charge you $10,000 a year for the privilege

In a year when trillion dollar bailouts have become routine, many Americans have become almost numb to our acceleration towards socialism.

But gun rights activists aren’t in that crowd, and so GOA has to inform you of yet ANOTHER threat to your privacy, the Second Amendment, and even your wallet.

It is called an “individual mandate” or, alternatively, the
“Massachusetts plan.” And over the weekend, both the Washington Post and the New York Times worked hard to build momentum for it.

First, a little history.

We alerted you a few weeks ago to the gun control provisions in the stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February. Our government will now spend between $12 and $20 BILLION to require the medical community to retroactively put our most confidential medical records
into a government database — a database that could easily be used to deny veterans (and other law-abiding Americans) who have sought psychiatric treatment for things such as PTSD.

Currently, gun owners can avoid getting caught in this database by refusing to purchase health insurance or by purchasing insurance with a carrier that has not signed an agreement with the government to place your records in a national database.

But that’s all about to change. A budget resolution — to be voted on this Friday in the Senate — will be the first domino in a process that could FORCE you to buy government-approved insurance, thus making it impossible to avoid the medical database.

Put another way: If you do not have health insurance — or,
potentially, if you do not have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants you to have — the government will force you to purchase what it regards as “acceptable” health insurance. And, in most cases, you will have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

What would all this cost? Based on comparable insurance currently on the market, it could cost $10,000 a year — or more.

If you were jobless, the socialists would probably spot you the ten grand. But if you are middle class and can’t pay $10,000 because of your mortgage payments, your small business, or your kids’ college education, you would be fined (over $1,000 a year currently in Massachusetts). And, if you couldn’t pay the confiscatory fine, you could ultimately be imprisoned.

Scary, you say. But why is this a Second Amendment issue? Under the Massachusetts plan, your MANDATED insurance carrier has to feed your medical data into a centralized database — freely accessible by the government under federal privacy laws.

So… remember when your pediatrician asked your kid if you have a firearm in the home? Or when your dad was given a prescription for Zoloft because of his Alzheimer’s? Or when your wife mentioned to her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago?

All of this would be in a centralized database. And all of it could potentially be used to vastly expand the “prohibited persons” list maintained by the FBI in West Virginia.

How serious a threat is this?

If it gets into the budget resolution the Senate will consider on Friday, it will be almost impossible to strip out later. It will be as much of a done-deal as the stimulus package was.

We have asked senators to introduce language to prohibit such an individual mandate for socialized medicine that would violate the privacy of gun owners. In the absence of such an amendment, we are asking senators to vote against the budget resolution.

ACTION: Write your U.S. Senators. Urge them to vote against the budget resolution if it does not contain language prohibiting a mandate that Americans buy government-approved health insurance against their will.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

A budget resolution that could end up requiring Americans to purchase expensive health insurance policies against their will is truly frightening.

And equally alarming is the fact that such mandated health care coverage could easily become a shill for gun control.

Potentially, anyone who does not have health insurance– or does not have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants them to have — will be forced to purchase “acceptable” health insurance and pay for it
out of our own pockets.

Based on the cost of comparable insurance currently on the market, that could cost $10,000 a year — or more.

That’s bad enough. But far worse, such a “Massachusetts Plan” would MANDATE that an insurance carrier feed medical data into a centralized database — freely accessible by the government under federal privacy laws.

Hence, a kid’s statement to his pediatrician about his parents’ firearms… or a dad’s prescription for Zoloft because of his Alzheimer’s… or a wife’s statement to her gynecologist about her regular use of marijuana ten years ago… could all turn up in a federal database and unconstitutionally expand the list of “prohibited persons.”
Individuals would have no ability to opt out.

For all of these reasons, if the budget resolution does not contain language prohibiting an “individual mandate” regarding health care, I would ask that you oppose the budget resolution.

Sincerely,

There is a claim that “US Gun Laws” are responsible for the flow of arms to Mexican gangs and drug cartels. This patent Big Lie has been picked up by the media and has the appearance of a coordinated campaign.

The easiest way to prove that the USA is not the source of the weapons is to look at what kinds of weapons are being found. Fully automatic AK-47s are extremely rare in the USA but common in much of the Third World. Rocket propelled grenades (RPG)are also made outside of the USA. Both of these weapons were developed in Russia and licensed to Soviet client states such as China (PRC), North Korea, North Vietnam, the Warsaw Pact, and others.

If these weapons are being trans-shipped through the United States in quantity, then we have an abject failure of agencies such as ICE and Homeland Security. That would be an Administration failure.

This Big Lie should not be used as an excuse to reenact the worthless and ineffective “Assault Weapon Ban” of 1994. Dianne Feinstein admitted that the 1994 bill would not make a real difference but would serve as a first step toward the total elimination of privately held firearms, or in her own words, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in, turn them ALL in.”

Remember, “Gun Control” is really about Control as in controlling our citizens.

Orginal posted here :Jerome C. Borden Layton

Wesely Clark was just on Geraldo pusing this scam that AK-47 machine guns needed to be banned in the US because the were being smuggled into Mexico.

Full story showing where the guns really come from. South America is here.

full story

Attorney General Eric Holder said today that the Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

This is a known lie because the weapons used in Mexico are fully-auto and not the same guns the president would be banning.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.

“Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,” the warning said. “Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez.”

Someone explain how fully auto weapons and grenade’s should require a ban on semi auto guns in the US. the 2 are not related in anyway those guns did not come from the US its just another excuse.

During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.

“I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller,” Holder said

No word from him on what this non existence cop-killer bullet is. In the past we have found that its really a dear riffle bullet they want to ban.

So much for the claims that Obama will not ban guns. Based on prior Obama bills we will have no hearings and it will be added to some bill that we can not live without.

Full story posted here.

MEXICO CITY (AP) — More than 50 U.S. lawmakers sent a letter to President Barack Obama urging him to enforce a ban on importing assault weapons, saying many such guns are later smuggled south to arm Mexico’s ruthless drug cartels.

“They come to the United States from Europe and other places, and they make their way down to Mexico,” Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, told reporters in Mexico City on Wednesday.

The ban was implemented under the administrations of President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, and the U.S. government can enforce it under provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act.

That ban was on semi-auto guns just like the ones built in the US there was never any reason to stop imports that were identical to those made in the us. They were not fully auto machine guns.

On Tuesday, federal police fighting gunmen in the northern border city of Reynosa had to call the army for help. After the fighting, which left five gunmen dead and seven police injured, authorities seized several assault rifles and even a 60 mm mortar.

In a recent report, the federal Attorney General’s Office said Mexican authorities have seized the most weapons from the Gulf drug cartel and its gang of hit men, known as the “Zetas.” Members of the cartel have been found with rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and weapons capable of piercing armor.

Who is this author the ban he is talking about has nothing to do with rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and mortars. And as far as armor piercing any standard hunting gun will do that.

From what I understand the Mexicans have fully auto machine guns and none of the guns they have were imported into the US and then exported to Mexico.

The fact that these US lawmakers do not know this shows how inept the gun control movement is in the US

– Billions of dollars for anti-gun ACORN and computer database

It was a day that will live in infamy.

President Obama traveled to Denver, Colorado yesterday to sign the multi-billion dollar, pork-laden, so-called “stimulus” bill into law.

But forget the $787 billion price tag you heard on TV. Forget the $12 TRILLION debt limit which the bill created.

By the time debt services and other frills of the “socialism bill” are accounted for, the cost will be over $3,000,000,000,000 (yes, three TRILLION).

This makes the bill the biggest government spending grab in human history.

But what about the details? The hundreds and hundreds of pages in the bill were not made available until less than 18 hours before the final passage vote. But here’s what we know in relation to the gun-related provisions:

* The final bill continues to spend between $12 and $20 BILLION on requiring your doctor to retroactively put your most confidential medical records into a government database. Based on our experience with veterans, we would expect the government to try to use computerized psychiatric records to impose gun bans on people who have sought (or will seek) treatment.

* The final bill continues to fund liberal community action groups like ACORN, which has been convicted in previous elections for voter fraud and is now under investigation in several states for having engaged in massive criminal election fraud on behalf of Barack Obama’s presidential
candidacy. Not only that, they have also been involved in anti-Second Amendment activism in New Jersey.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was at least honest when he said it would be a shame to let a crisis like the current recession “go to waste.” Like vultures picking on the nation’s carcass, the White House has used the nation’s pain to lavish largesse on its political supporters, at the expense of the nation’s economic survival.

And, in the end, this act of ethical depravity was made possible by every Democrat Senator who voted for the bill, plus the defections of three Republicans: Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME).

Ex-Hitler youth compares Obama to Nazi rise

Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in despotism. … However, it goes further than anything in the past because it aims at the formal destruction of the individual … who … can be used to improve communities by an expedient organ of government.
– Friedrich Nitzsche

Marxists believe that a non-socialist society is to blame for what is wrong with people and therefore, change has to begin with those who are responsible for society, mainly “the rich.” Others, not they, have to change, and the others are in the end all those who oppose socialism. People are either forced to comply or they are killed, as happened in Nazi Germany. If you put right what is wrong in society, so goes Marxist theory, you will heal injustice and people, products of a hostile society, will become their good selves. Healing is created by installing more and more socialists in office, socialist immorality and socialist programs.

Barack Obama has not touched corruption and moral issues. His plans for dealing with issues are of economic nature and are pure Marxism – blaming the non-socialist enemies and distributing money to bribe poor voters, making them dependent on government and cementing its power. Marxism’s concepts lead to the welfare state – and on to a totalitarian system built on lies where government is central. There is no real concern for people; power is at the heart of all their projects.

The Democratic Party, with the leadership of Obama, the Clintons, Reid, Pelosi and comrades, is an illegitimate party that is destroying the Constitution – which leads to spiritual, political and economic disaster. It is illegitimate because of policy principles like abortion and also Darwinism being taught in schools. Instead of protecting life, this party promotes killing life. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is legitimate in principle with a majority that wants to do what is right but is lacking a national and personal purpose and therefore so often appeases what is wrong. Nobody wants to risk his position. It is the Appeaser’s Party. There are too many who are looking after themselves first and their country second.

One central theme is enough to clarify why I say that the socialist Democratic Party is illegitimate. Their policies are Marxist and not American, and they promote immorality. It was the Soviet Union, for instance, that was the first state to make abortion legal, already at the beginning of the ’20s. Having grown up in the godless totalitarian Nazi society, it is appalling for me to watch that in America, politicians can speak of their “Christian faith” and at the same time make abortion, same-sex marriage and homosexuality their party policy. Democrats are not fit for American constitutional government.

No government or parliament across the globe has the authority to overrule God. The godless national Socialists, called Nazis, did it, and my family, Jewish people, all Germans and Europeans paid dearly for it, because millions of us did not see our own evil inside. American soldiers shed their blood to liberate us from Nazi power. It pains me to see America today on the same track. Not only those who actively promote the godless programs allowed by our government establishment but also those who for personal reasons or lack of backbone appease them. They will pay for it, here and when they face their Creator. I know the consequence of a godless government. America must have a God-fearing government. The abortionists are closer to the Nazis than to our Founding Fathers. Both base their philosophy and action on lies.

More Here

“Pork” Bailout Bill Could Ban Guns For Millions Of Americans
– Ask your Senators to oppose HR 1

“HR 1 is about more than just pork. Millions of gun owners stand to
lose their gun rights without any due process.” — Larry Pratt, GOA
Executive Director

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The Obama administration is putting a lot of pressure on Congress to
slam through the most recent $800+ billion bailout package before anyone
has an opportunity to read it.

The Obama administration intones that the details are unimportant. The
only thing that matters is the “bigness.” And, by shipping a bill of
nearly $900 billion (plus interest) to our children and grandchildren,
the package is really, really big — bigger, in fact, than the budget of
our entire government for the first 170 years of our country’s
existence.

But now that some of the details are finally starting to leak out of
Washington, Gun Owners — and a lot of other analysts — are beginning
to look at the fine print. And some of it is particularly scary.

Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of
HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical
records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.

True, the bill doesn’t mandate that the data will be in a giant computer
under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be
reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second.

This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology — tasked with, among other things, “providing
information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of
care.”

It should be scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by
statute to try to influence your doctor’s decisions with respect to your
medical care.

But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a
government-coordinated database (which government can freely access)
will now contain all records of government-provided and private
psychiatric treatment — including, in particular, the drugs which were
prescribed.

Remember last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” — otherwise known as the
Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF’s attempts to make you
a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s finding
that you are a “danger” — without a finding by any court. Well,
roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly
stripped of their gun rights by the government.

But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Disorder… or seniors with Alzheimer’s… or police with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder… or people who are now theoretically covered by the
new law… these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences
of its sanctions — YET. And the chief reason is that their records are
not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable,
computerized form.

The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly
hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned
psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive
database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does
business with the government.

This would supposedly save Medicare money in connection with medical
treatment. And, the sponsors insist, they would work very hard to
protect your privacy.

But this turns the concept of “privacy” on its head. The privacy which
is MOST important is privacy from the prying eyes of government — not
privacy of government data against the prying eyes of others. After
all, many government data bases have been hacked in recent years, with
mountains of information stolen.

So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric
records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the
gun rights of those with Alzheimer’s, those with ADD, and those with
PTSD.

ACTION: Write your two senators. Urge them to vote against the bailout
bill (HR 1) until it is stripped of provisions which would turn your
psychiatric records over to a central government-coordinated database
against your will — without you getting your day in court.

You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Senator:

I am particularly concerned about sections 13101 through 13434 of the
new bailout bill (HR 1). These sections would set up the infrastructure
to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a
government-coordinated database, including psychiatric records.

It is scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute
to try to influence my doctor’s decisions with respect to my medical
care.

But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a
government-coordinated database will now contain all records of
government-provided and private psychiatric treatment.

Last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” codified ATF’s attempts to make a
person a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s
finding that he is a “danger” — without a finding by any court. Well,
roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly
stripped of their gun rights by the government.

Now, this new government-coordinated database threatens the gun rights
of people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Disorder… seniors with Alzheimer’s… police with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder… and many other law-abiding Americans.

Please vote against cloture on HR 1 until this provision is removed.

Sincerely,

****************************

Anti-gun Land Bill On The Move S. 22
– House Vote Expected This Week
Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of public and private land.

Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.

While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.

Another eyebrow-raising aspect of this bill is that it is actually a compilation of over 150 separate pieces of legislation that never passed out of Congress on their own merits.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully held up over 100 of these bills, until anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolled all of the bills into one so-called Coburn Omnibus and forced it through the Senate in January on a vote of 73-21.

As the House prepares to take up the bill, the Democrat leadership has taken procedural steps to ensure that the measure cannot be amended or altered in any way. That means that if it passes the House, it goes right to President Obama’s desk, where it will be signed into law.

Here are a few of the more troubling aspects of the bill:

* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the gun ban.

* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail that stretches from Rhode Island to Virginia and includes sections of major thoroughfares such as Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1, and passes through cities like Boston and Philadelphia. The entire trail would fall under the NPS and the gun ban.

* The National Landscape Conservation System groups together millions of acres of federal land and places it under one new umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton administration and run administratively since then. S. 22 will codify the system, which raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated
from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners’ rights will be protected.

* S. 22 strips out small concessions won by pro-gunners in the House last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms possession and hunting on certain land.

* S.22 allows for NO amendments. Pro-gun members who want to offer an amendment to fully repeal the NPS gun ban are prevented from doing so by the anti-gun leadership.

The full House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill this Wednesday or Thursday.

Unless the NPS gun ban is repealed and the rights of gun owners are protected, Gun Owners of America opposes the bill in its entirety.

ACTION: Please urge your Representative to repeal the NPS gun ban in S. 22, or to vote against the entire bill. You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://capwiz.com/gunowners/home/ to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Representative:

I urge you to oppose S. 22, a bill that will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service (NPS).

NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban. While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.
Which is why S. 22 raises so many concerns:

* It authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the gun ban.

* The bill federalizes the Washington-Rochambeau Route, a 650 mile trail, and places it under the NPS gun ban.

* S. 22 will codify the National Landscape Conservation System, which raises concerns for hunters and sportsmen. Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service, which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun owners’ rights will be protected.

* S. 22 also strips out small concessions which were won in the House last year that would allow state and local law to govern firearms possession and hunting on certain land. But the anti-gun House leadership is preventing any amendments to fully repeal the NPS gun ban.

If these concerns are not corrected in S. 22, I would strongly urge you to vote against it.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Will that deer you killed file suit against you using his new Obama lawer? This is a must read. Wow is this the change people voted for?

Cass Sunstein, the Harvard University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein argued in favor of entirely “eliminating current practices such as … meat eating.” He also proposed: “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”

Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book “Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions” that “animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”

Sunstein’s work could spell the end of animal agriculture, retail sales of meat and dairy foods, hunting and fishing, biomedical research, pet ownership, zoos and aquariums, traveling circuses, and countless other things Americans take for granted.

Cass Sunstein owes Americans an honest appraisal of his animal rights agenda as America’s top regulator. Americans don’t realize that the next four years could be full of bizarre initiatives plucked from the wildest dreams of the animal-rights fringe. Think about every outrageous idea PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have ever had, and imagine them all having the force of federal law. This doesn’t look good for hunters, ranchers, restaurateurs, biomedical researchers, or ordinary pet owners.”

More on new first gun bill of 2009 from.
nationalexpositor.com

Firearms may only be owned by those possessing a valid license issued by the federal Attorney General. This license will contain the licensee’s photograph, thumb print, address, and a unique license number. Possession of a firearm without a license would constitute a federal crime.
Firearms may only be sold by federal firearms licensees to other license holders. This would put an end to person-to-person firearm sales.
Firearms must be stored locked in a safe. If you have children, you may not be allowed to store weapons loaded, even in a safe. Failure to comply with guidelines on storage would result in the loss of your license.
You must purchase the license for $25, payable with your application, directly to the Attorney General. There is no time limit or “shall-issue” clause. The Attorney General can simply ignore your request (and take your money).
The bill is ex-post facto; this means that once the bill is passed and enacted, the laws will apply to guns you already own, as well as ones you will purchase in the future. This means that if you are a law abiding gun owner today, you will still have to get a license in order to avoid having your firearms confiscated.
The law establishes a national database which tracks all firearms sales. This creates a national database of gun owners.
Failing to update your address information, or otherwise notify the issuing office of your firearms license when you move, would constitute a felony
In addition to the current requirement for background checks with the NCIS when purchasing a firearm on an ATF form 4473, there would be an additional requirement to check with the Attorney General’s office to ensure that your license was still valid
Possession of a firearm by a minor, being anyone under 18, even under your supervision, would become illegal
I would advise that after reading the law – cited in its entirety below – you also research the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. They bear a striking resemblance.

ACORN Pushes BulletControl calls it ‘Stop the Bullet campaign’ And everyone wondered why gun sales were up.

ACORN a group accused of election fraud , is fighting for a new law it says will save lives.
They say “Stop the Bullet” is a campaign that would make it harder for felons to buy ammunition from stores.

This law would require a background check to buy ammunition. And require bullet permits.

Community organizer for the local NC ACORN group, The Rev. Melvin Whitley, says it’s too easy for criminals to buy ammo, and he plans to close that loophole.

ACORN’S initiative would expand the law to include ammunition, and may even include a requirement for bullet permits.

“The problem with the law is that it allows criminals to have access to bullets. And it’s the bullets that’s killing us,” according to Whitley.

But gun shop owners disagree.

They feel it’s just another way organizations are trying to take away their Second Amendment rights.

“We have to make it clear we are not talking about gun control, we’re talking about bullets,” said Durham City Council Member Howard Clement III.

Whitley stated his case before the Durham City Council Thursday in hopes that the council will add it to its legislative agenda. The council’s legislative committee will determine whether the initiative has legs.

Whitley hopes to get the bill passed in a year.

Just what we need an Obama stooge group pushing gun control. Smells fishy perhaps a guncontrol test by Obama to see what happens.

more comments here

Obama Clashes with Santa Claus on Gun Rights Christmas card.

Packing a holstered pistol on his belt, Santa Claus opposes President-elect Barack Obama over gun rights on an original Christmas card sent to members of Congress and others by right to self-defense advocate John M. Snyder of Telum Associates, LL.C.

“Although Obama said recently that, ‘lawful gun owners have nothing to fear’ from his administration, the fact is that firearm owners are not so sure,” said Snyder. “Obama’s public record as a staunch advocate of repressive gun control measures belies his attempt to tamp the concerns of lawful gun owners. So does his appointment to his administration of anti-gun politicians Eric Holder as Attorney General and Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. America’s 90 million law-abiding firearm owners oppose extremist gun control proposals emanating from Washington, D.C. This includes any extremist anti-gun proposals which Obama tries to label ‘common sense gun safety laws,’ a phrase he used recently to characterize the kind of laws he would support.

“Obama’s record includes support for a handgun ban and a ban on concealed carry firearm permits, as well as hyper-restrictive measures regarding the acquisition and possession of rifles and shotguns. Holder has stated that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Emanuel worked at the White House for passage of the Clinton Administration ban on certain semiautomatic firearms, which President Clinton himself later admitted led to Democrat loss of the House in the 1994 elections. It expired in 2004. Although Obama said recently that, ‘people can take me at my word,’ gun owners wonder, ‘which word?’ Lawful firearm owners do not trust him and are gearing up for a real battle.”

Snyder added that, “Americans hope an incoming administration will be able to deal effectively with the economic problems confronting our nation, but gun owners are wary of Obama’s record on firearms regulatory and prohibitive proposals, and concerned about Obama’s possible connection with officials involved in public scandals being reported from Illinois. Firearms owners are ready to fight for the preservation of the civil right to keep and bear arms, the right to self-defense, the right to life itself.”

The card depicts Santa and Obama in caricature tugging against each other on opposite ends of a rope. Gun owners support Santa and gun grabbers support Obama.

An image of the Supreme Court appears in the background, recalling the Court’s holding last summer in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Initially, both Obama and Holder opposed the individual rights position which the Court later adopted.

“The tug of war continues,” notes the card. A high resolution image of the card is available on request by email to gundean@gmail.com.

Sebastian D’Souza a news photographer who witnessed the entire scene said.

There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, “Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!” but they just didn’t shoot back. I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera

“I only wish I had a gun,” a statement that echoes one of the biggest failures of Indian democracy. The state has actively prevented law-abiding citizens from owning the tools with which to protect their lives!

It wasn’t supposed to be this way, in fact throughout the freedom struggle our leaders actively campaigned for gun rights, including M.K. Gandhi himself. In it’s 1931 Karachi session the Congress party, which was at the forefront of our freedom struggle, adopted a 20-point resolution on fundamental rights, this included the right to keep and bear arms. However, when India finally became independent in 1947, this right was missing from the new constitution that was finally adopted.

Instead the Indian parliament made noises about weapon “regulation” and eventually replaced the British time Arms Act with the new Arms Act of 1959, which boldly promised to make it easier for citizens to own guns, but in essence was a rehash of the old legislation.

But the Indian government has not merely used legislation and licensing to keep guns out of the hands of civilians. It has also used state policy to ensure that firearms and ammunition prices are probably some of the highest in the world. Domestic production of rifled firearms is a state monopoly, churning out crude products that are priced at 7 (or more) times their cost of production. Similarly domestic production of ammunition is a state monopoly with inconsistent supplies, poor quality, and very high prices. This combined with the fact that imports have been virtually banned since 1986 means that an ordinary snub nosed .357 Colt revolver will sell (legally) for a mind boggling US $20,000 or more.

A tight licensing regime combined with the high price of acquiring a legal gun has meant that very few Indians own weapons. Unsurprisingly these restrictions have also meant that there is a thriving black market for arms and ammunition, ensuring a steady supply to all manner of criminals — people who don’t bother about the niceties of remaining within the purview of the law.

Citizens must jump through several hoops to get an arms license and then pay crazy prices for ordinary products. But black market firearms are available at a small fraction of the cost of legal firearms. A country-made single shot handgun can cost as little as US $ 20, imported handguns go for US $ 500- $1,000, and AK-47’s (like the ones that were used in this attack) cost about US$ 1,500 or thereabouts on the black market. There never was a clearer real life example of how gun control takes guns out of the hands of decent law-abiding folk and puts them right into the hands of criminals.

At the Jewish outreach centre, bystanders pelted the terrorists with stones in a vain attempt to ward off the attack, but had to retreat when the terrorists opened fire with automatic rifles. Our citizens were trying to ward off the terrorists with stones! I cannot think of a more extreme example of how helpless the government has rendered it’s own citizens. In the absence of guns, and thus incapable of offering any resistance, they were simply like lambs to the slaughter. On that fateful day, this was a story repeated again and again all over Mumbai: unarmed civilians, slow & inept emergency services, and mindless slaughter of innocents.

But we live in a democracy; hence at the end of the day it is each one of us who is to blame. It is we the people who must ask our representatives hard questions; it is we who must bring the right to bear arms to the forefront of the political agenda. We have the power to effect change through our votes and with elections just a few months away, let us not forget the lessons of Mumbai, let us not forget those that lost their lives there, many of who could have been saved if just a few of us were armed.

As citizens it is incumbent on us to make sure we don’t allow another tragedy like Mumbai to take place. As free men and women it is our responsibility to take measures to protect ourselves as best we can, using the best available tools and it’s high time we demanded them as a right!

full story here.

The Bush administration last Friday announced it is overturning the 25-year-old Reagan-era regulation that severely restricted loaded guns in national parks. Under a rule to take effect in January, visitors who have the proper permits for carrying a concealed weapon will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge.

The new regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

The National Rifle Association has hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office. NRA officials say the new rule is more consistent with federal law and it eliminates confusion.

The park rule will be published in the Federal Register early this week and take effect 30 days later. Federal officials say overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

So will Obama live up to his promise he made last week or will he reverse this rule?

Obama contradicts his own website on gun control.
afp/article/

Obama said Sunday that lawful gun owners have “nothing to fear” from his incoming administration so there is no reason for Americans to stock up on guns.
“I believe in common sense gun safety law, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a press conference Sunday. “And so, lawful gun owners have nothing to fear.
“I’ve said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition, and I think that people can take me at my word.”

Now come on thats a outright lie his his websites have clearly stated the following.

…would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information. ..support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. .. also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

And he has hired pro guncontrol nuts to run the Justice department. Who is he trying to fool? Whats the deal is he smoking Crack or what?

Is this the change you voted for? A president who post something on his website and then tells you you did not see it.

Gun owners will not be fooled by this lame remark.

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/11/21/modern-day-pirates-show-the-need-for-armed-self-defense/

A solution to the problem of modern day piracy
The world’s navies can’t be everywhere at once. Even staying hundreds of miles away from the coast of Somalia is no longer enough to keep merchant ships safe. But firearms in the hands of the law abiding merchant sailors could make all the difference. Ideally, the pirates could be stopped before boarding the ship, with long range fire. The pirates would also be particularly vulnerable to self defense gunfire as they climb rope ladders to get from their small craft to the decks of large ships. Failing that, an armed crew aboard its own ship should still have an advantage over pirates that have to make their way through an unfamiliar ship’s passageways.
I am not suggesting that every single act of piracy could be stopped by arming the crews of ships – but I bet that armed merchant sailors would have a better chance of staying alive and free from captivity. Armed crews would also act as a deterrent, as pirates don’t tend to attack targets that can fight back (think about how rarely if ever pirates try to seize a warship!)

UN type gun control that has spread around the world has caused this piracy problem because it has kept the ships disarmed. Now is the time to arm all ships with mounted guns to protect them from pirates.
The people running the ships have to wake up and admit that gun control doesn’t work Gun Control Kills.

As Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel puts it, the crisis is “an opportunity to do things you could not do before . . . You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Obama’s has nominated Eric Holder for attorney general.
deputy attorney general in the Bill Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001

He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three-day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” by anyone under age 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, and national gun registration.

Now do you understand why gun sales are up?

“He also promoted the lie that ‘Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence’ — a statistic that is only true if you count 18-year-old adult gangsters who shoot each other as ‘children,’”

After 9/11 Holder wrote that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also said prospective gun buyers should be checked against secret government “watch lists” .

Earlier this year, Holder was on the wrong side of the DC case — co-signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia’s ban on all handguns and on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.

Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old’s home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez “was not taken at the point of a gun” and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted “very sensitively.” If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling “Get down, get down, we’ll shoot” is example of acting “very sensitively,” his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.

These policies match Obama’s anti gun history and show that Obama supportors who thought he was pro gun were wrong.

Eric Holder was also involved in the Waco raid that killed US children.

About two weeks before the raid, Tim Russert asked Holder, “You wouldn’t send a SWAT team in the dark of night to kidnap the child, in effect?”

Holder answered, “No, we don’t expect anything like that to happen.”
Then after the raid Holder was asked “Why such a dramatic change in position?” “I’m not sure I’d call it a dramatic change,” Holder answered. “We waited ‘til five in the morning, just before dawn.”

So ask yorself going back to Jack booted thugs. Is this the change people wanted? This man should be no wehere near government he is not qualified.

http://www.webcommentary.com Full story here

You may ask why American individuals are buying so many firearms per person. Simple. Some will be used, others will be hidden… concealed. If anyone asks about them they will have been lost, stolen, or destroyed in some kind of catastrophe such as a fire, etc.

Americans are scared witless that the democrats, under the Obama leadership, will make a determined effort to seize their guns. The democrats, including Obama, say they are for “Common sense” gun control. The definition of “Common sense” is what scares gun owners. I mean, when a Congress, so devoid of knowledge about firearms, outlaws an entire type of rifle because it LOOKS scary,” that tells you all you ever need to know about their “common sense.”

Remember those scary weapons? No amount of talking or demonstrating could convince the Congress that the weapons they outlawed were simply weapons designed merely to look militaristic, to look scary. Many hunting rifles carry the same ammunition as those “scary” weapons. The only difference is in the appearance of the weapons. But the “girlie” men in the Congress, and some of the “girlie” girls in the Congress were frightened by the appearance of those weapons… thus… they outlawed them. Talk about “common sense.”

There is a very real concern they will go after concealed weapon laws in the various states that have concealed carry permit laws such as my state, North Carolina. Here in the Tar Heel state one can obtain a concealed carry permit after you have completed a course in handling your firearm and in firearm safety. However, you don’t need a permit of any kind if you carry the weapon in plain sight. Yes, dear reader, you can carry your pistol in a holster, on your belt, in plain sight, and be legal in this state.

We gun owners are not relying on the Supreme Court to preserve our 2nd amendment rights. True, they did just rule that the 2nd amendment means what it says… but… and this is a big BUT… Obama is going to have the opportunity to replace at least two of those justices and, frankly, I cannot see him, or the Senate, approving anyone for the court who is a solid believer in the 2nd amendment. Thus, the fear that soon, our right to guns will be curtailed.

Another thing they have apparently not considered is… a cottage industry springing up in the manufacture of firearms. They are relatively easy to produce in most home workshops.

The majority of Americans now understand, at some level, that America now has a socialist government in power in Washington, DC. They also understand that socialism resembles a whited sepulcher. It may be beautiful on the outside but inside it is filled with the corpses of the dead. Socialism’s outside is layered with promises of all things beautiful but inside there resides the dead bodies of truth. Most Americans know that our new leaders cannot be trusted. That means that the American citizen is vulnerable. That vulnerability is the key to the insecurity that is driving the purchase of weapons.

We are entering a perilous time IN America and FOR America. Already our traditional enemies are moving and positioning their armed forces to areas and positions strategic to their plans for expansion. They know America’s new government will not have the will or the fortitude to stop them and they will have a free hand, especially in Eastern Europe. In the Middle East the Arabs are positioning troops for another onslaught against our only real friend in the area, Israel. Without America’s assistance, Israel will rely on her nuclear arsenal to defeat those age-old enemies. Israel has stated, unabashedly, she will employ her nukes to preserve her freedom, indeed her continued survival.

As US troops begin leaving through Iraq’s front door Iranian troops will likely begin entering the back door. Soon after all US troops are out of Iraq, Iran will, most likely, invade and easily conquer Iraq before another strongman regime can be instituted by the Iraqi people themselves.

Afghanistan will bleed our treasury dry while we have another try at “Nation Building” in a country with a people who have no concept of a nation, only tribes. The Afghanis will simply wait for us to give up and go home before they resume their centuries old way of life groveling in the dirt before the meanest man with the biggest gun.

And these are just the bright spots.

Yes, Americans are arming themselves because they fear what is coming… and with good reason.

Obama questions to anyone who works for him.

So Obama and his top people are so ignorant that they do not know we don’t have gun registration in the US? That only some cities have it.
This question is an insult to gun owners. It shows how ignorant of guns laws the top Obama people are.

As a US gun owner we are not required to hold any ‘complete ownership registration information’ and we demand an apology from the Obama on this pro gun-control wording in his official documents.

In July 1996 Senate Amendment 5083 to House Bill 2980 passed by unanimous voice vote. This amendment is now what we refer to as the Lautenberg Amendment. It prevents people with any ‘domestic violence’ convictions from ever owning a gun. The conviction could have occurred long before the passage of S.A.5083 and may have been a misdemeanor.

Over turning Lautenberg will not be easy. We know better, but the opposition will claim that we favor domestic violence. The concepts of ‘ex post facto’ and reasonableness are violated by this law. What we really favor is the Constitution.

http://www.petitiononline.com/658104/petition.html (open as of 08)

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Lautenbergrepeal (closed)
http://www.gopetition.com/online/7723.html (closed)

Orginal date nov05   Updated nov08

This story on whats going on with the unprotected in Chicago shows what kind of gun laws Obama wants since he approved all of these laws.

Strict gun control laws do nothing to prevent violent crimes

It’s scary to go dress shopping in Illinois these days. After all, it has been 11 weeks, and still no arrest has been made in the tragic Tinley Park Lane Bryant store massacre. All we know is that the perpetrator was attempting to rob the Brookside Marketplace clothing store on a cold Saturday morning. He forced six women into the store’s back room, tied them up and made them lay on the floor. Lying there, the heroic store manager secretly dialed 911 for help. Audio tapes of the 911 call indicate the robber heard the operator’s voice, panicked and began shooting each defenseless victim in the back of the head.

After shooting all six, the killer escaped through the store’s back door, just as the 911 operator alerted a Tinley Park police officer in an adjoining parking lot. Before the officer could respond, the devastation had taken place. Just yards away from him, five women were killed, and one, shot in the neck instead of the head, lay critically wounded.

To this day, a dangerous man with nothing to lose from killing again remains on the loose.

Illinois women are some of the few in America banned by law from protecting themselves. Forty-eight other states allow their citizens to carry concealed firearms.

And it’s even more scary in Chicago. There, law-abiding women are completely defenseless, even within their homes. Chicago women are not allowed to register handguns and keep them in their homes for protection against intruders.

On top of that, the state has an active moratorium on the death penalty.

If you were a cold-blooded murderer, where would you go to find your next victims?

Updated after election

FULL STORY HERE

Well we warned you Obama was anti gun but you were promised by his factcheck website that he was not. Now his new website has posted his true gun control plans.

Last week President-elect Obama’s Web site had posted his administration’s agenda for curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans, thereby validating the concerns of gun owners, sportsmen and firearms enthusiasts all across the country. Curiously, the Obama-Biden gun control agenda was taken down from the Web site after just two days.

We are not really surprised at the changing website Obamas webmasters have done this before on Obama websites. But this time they have been caught. Because the new website is a gov website it is PD unlike the old campain one that was copyrighted. A archived copy of the old website has been posted here so Obamas webmasters can no longer hide what they posted. Guncontrol is listed under Urban Policy
To allow the Obama camp to pretend their words never existed is unacceptable.

President-elect Obama’s Web site stated he would make permanent the expired “assault weapons” ban of 1994, a ban on firearms that was based on cosmetic appearance, such as the type of stock on the gun, and not functionality. The expired ban did nothing to reduce crime while it was in place. President-elect Obama’s Web site intentionally misled the American people by referring to these firearms as “weapons that belong on foreign battlefields.” These firearms are not machine guns. In reality, these commonplace firearms that President-elect Obama wants to permanently ban are used in shooting competitions and are found in homes and hunting lodges all across the country. They fire only once with each trigger pull, no spray firing, and they shoot the same ammunition as other firearms of the same caliber.

President-elect Obama has also promised to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, a law which restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement — only firearms tracing data. Public release of gun trace data outside law enforcement has and will continue to jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations, putting the lives of law enforcement, witnesses and others at risk. This is why Congress, ATF, and law enforcement, including the nation’s largest police organization, the Fraternal Order of Police, agree on the importance of securing this sensitive data. Access to gun trace data should only be available to law enforcement taking part in a bona-fide investigation, and law enforcement already has the access it needs for this purpose. No law enforcement agency has ever been denied access to trace data as part of a criminal investigation.

The Obama-Biden Web site also called for “childproofing” all firearms, despite firearm-related accidents being at their lowest levels in history, including a 60 percent decrease over the last 20 years, and a federal law that requires firearms dealers to provide a lock with each handgun sold and to have locks available for consumers to purchase. Firearms industry members have a long history of supporting the safe and responsible use and storage of firearms through programs such as Project ChildSafe, a campaign developed by the NSSF that has distributed over 35 million free gun lock safe storage kits throughout the United States. For years, manufacturers have voluntarily provided a free locking device with each new firearm. Thankfully, the National Safety Council reports that childhood firearms accidents now comprise less than 1 percent of all fatal childhood injuries.

Finally, the appointment of Rahm Emanuel, the strident chief architect of the Clinton-Gore gun control agenda, as President-elect Obama’s chief of staff sends an unambiguous message to gun-owners and members of the firearms industry.

Is this the change you voted for? Perhaps next time someone says they have change but wont tell you what it is you won’t vote for them.

Coloseum Software Corporation has developed software that will help dealers
record all of the information that is unconstitutionally required by the
federal government — and to keep that information in a way that insulates
them from bogus prosecutions at the hands of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (aka The Gang).

The document that is most often involved in “gotcha” injustices is the Form
4473 which all customers must fill out when buying from a licensed federal
firearms dealer — a requirement that is yet another unconstitutional
imposition by the feds.

One of the favorite tricks of the BATFE has been to pounce on trivial
customer errors such as writing “Blto” instead of “Baltimore” on the 4473
Form. One dealer supposedly showed his willfulness in breaking the law when
his clerks missed some sixty-plus instances when customers tried to “sneak”
Blto past those eagle-eyed inspectors from The Gang.

While this does nothing to fight crime, it has allowed The Gang to reduce
the ranks of dealers by some 85 percent since the Clinton presidency.

The genius of Coloseum’s software is that it allows a dealer to walk a
customer through the Form 4473 without making a single mistake. With an
electronic signature, the computer’s form can be printed, providing a
perfect 4473 available for The Gang to inspect.

A foolproof way of filling out the 4473 would reduce the number of dealers
put out of business. That’s the advantage of using the Coloseum software.

So Coloseum approached the BATFE several months ago to discuss its plans to
release the first eForm 4473. The company wanted to make sure that it was
complying with all applicable federal laws and get the agency’s approval for
the product.

The BATFE wanted to see the details of the program, which left the directors
at Coloseum a bit hesitant, as companies are reticent to expose the details
of a product before it’s released to the market place.

No problem, Coloseum was told. The agency would protect the details of
their product.

Well, that was a lie.

The Gang assigned a liaison, Ms. Melinda Whitworth, to work with Coloseum.
She dealt with the company for several weeks, asking many detailed
questions. Again, Coloseum was led to believe that, if they worked with Ms.
Whitworth, they would get approval for their product.

Well, one of the Gang’s representatives called for a meeting with Coloseum
– a meeting which took place earlier this month. It was at that meeting
that Coloseum was told by an ATF agent that, “The BATF is in the process of
creating our own technologies.”

Coloseum asked for clarification — did that mean that BATFE was developing
its own software, similar to Coloseum’s? “Yes” was the response.

James LaMonte, the CEO and founder of Coloseum Software Corp. was
dumbfounded. “As a small business owner, I never would have thought that
our biggest competition was the United States Government,” he told Gun
Owners of America.

After all, the IRS does not publish a “government version” of Turbo Tax.
It’s private companies that produce such products for public use. The Gang,
as it is so apt to do, was once again trampling on the little guy.

Oh, and what about their “liaison,” Ms. Whitworth? At the recent meeting,
Coloseum found that Ms. Whitworth — who was supposedly helping the company
get ATF approval of its software — was in charge of the team that is
developing the copycat software at ATF.

Ms. Whitworth even had the effrontery to apologize for not having developed
a product as good as Coloseum’s.

Here is the bottom line. If The Gang gets their software out to dealers
(probably for “free”) before Coloseum gets to market, then the government’s
stolen version of the software is public domain. No one would ever need to
buy Coloseum’s intellectual property.

Coloseum is sending a free copy of its product to dealers so they can
install the software on their store computer. If dealers need additional
copies for a second or third computer, they can buy additional copies, as
well. Hopefully, dealers will pounce on this opportunity.

What Coloseum is doing is unprecedented. And so, it seems, is the blatant
thievery brazenly carried out by The Gang.

If dealers decide they just want to use the Bureau’s software, they should
first consider that they will be getting a much inferior product. Moreover,
The Gang’s software means that the government will have unrestricted access
to all of the dealer’s business records because it will allow “back door”
access by the ATF. This kind of untrammeled access of all dealer records
would not be possible with Coloseum Software.

It is long overdue that President Bush clean house at the BATFE. He needs
to fire the Acting Director of the Bureau and command that employees destroy
their stolen property.

Watch out if Dems gain total control

Democrats are awaiting their Election Day sweep that will give their party a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority in Congress and total, unstoppable power to enact whatever laws they want.

One of their first targets will be gun-owners. That’s no surprise, since virtually every gun-control scheme that has been perpetrated against the citizens of this country at the local, state, and federal level has been hatched by Democrats.

Yet Democrats falsely claim to be the true champions of the Constitution and our rights thereunder.

Barack Obama, despite his lip service to the Second Amendment, is an arch-enemy of gun-owners. His record as an Illinois legislator and a U.S. senator is proof of that.

Obama is documented as voting for every piece of anti-gun legislation that has come before him. He is on record as stating that handguns should be outlawed, for banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, for banning concealed carry, banning firearms kept in the home, banning most types of hunting rifle ammunition, and for favoring a federal law to nullify state laws that permit concealed carrying of handguns.

Obama can run from his record, but he can’t hide from it. Listen not to what he says, but examine his actual record instead. That’s where you will find the truth about Obama, and it’s ugly.

link

Factual Response to Washington Post False Statements on NRA Anti-Obama Ads

Washington Post Claim—500% Tax on Guns
It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. … Even if Obama did support a big tax increase on the sale of certain types of assault weapons back in 1999, that is hardly evidence that he will move as president to tax the “guns and ammo” most commonly used by hunters.

Facts:
The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] — weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. (emphasis added). Contrary to the Post’s assertion, the statement makes no distinction as to what type of guns Obama proposed to tax.
The Post is far too eager to let Obama off the hook just because he hasn’t mentioned the idea lately. Obama has supported the idea and has never repudiated that support. Therefore it is fair to say that the statement reflects his views on the issue.

Washington Post Claim—Ammunition Ban
Contrary to [NRA’s] claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at “virtually all deer-hunting ammunition.” Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would “not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles,” a point contested by the NRA.

Facts:
NRA contested the point for a simple reason: The Post is wrong.
The Kennedy Amendment would have expanded the current ban on manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition” other than for sale to the government, 18 U.S.C. ‘ 922(a)(7), by banning any “projectile [i.e., bullet] that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines … to be capable of penetrating body armor.” The amendment called for testing of projectiles against “body armor that … meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.” S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, July 29, 2005.
Body armor is rated in different classes based on the level of protection it provides. The “minimum” level of body armor under Department of Justice standards that were in effect in 2005, Type I armor, only protects against the least powerful handgun cartridges; only Type III and higher armor protects against high-powered rifle cartridges. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of PersonalBody Armor: NIJ Standard-0101.04 2-3 (June 2001).
However, there are many “projectiles that may be used in a handgun” that can also be used in a rifle. Handgun hunting is increasingly popular, and handgun hunters often use handguns that fire common hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-30 Winchester. See, e.g., http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php#spec_charts. A ban on “projectile[s] that may be used” in these handguns would have the effect of banning the same cartridges for rifle hunters. It would even ban rifle cartridges not commonly used in handguns, because any bullet may be fired in a barrel of the correct diameter, regardless of whether the barrel is installed on a handgun or on a rifle.
Finally, it is true that Sen. Kennedy denied his 2005 amendment would ban hunting ammunition. However, in a floor debate on a substantially identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced a hunting rifle cartridge:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 [sic] caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers’ armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.
Cong. Rec. S1634 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2004). The relatively low-powered .30-30 Winchester was introduced in 1895 and “has long been the standard American deer cartridge.” Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World 52 (8th ed. 1997). As noted above, the .30-30 may be fired in a handgun.
Even apart from the Kennedy Amendment, Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would “support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” See Lynn Sweet, Obama’s 2003 IVI-IPO questionnaire may be getting closer scrutiny, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 11, 2007 (available at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html). The rifles that were banned as “assault weapons” under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester—the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) (repealed Sept. 13, 2004). Therefore, this statement also supports a ban on hunting rifle ammunition.

Washington Post Claim—Gun Ban
The … claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.

Facts:
While Obama does support the ban (which actually expired in September, not March, of 2004), the statement in the advertisement is based on Sen. Obama’s vote for much broader legislation and his public statement in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms.
On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).
The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters.
Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed).
Obama also supported banning a large class of popular hunting firearms on a 1998 Project VoteSmart survey. One of the questions, and the relevant part of Obama’s responses, were as follows:
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
See Illinois State Legislative Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test (available at http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826:) (emphasis added). Millions of American hunters have used semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for over a century.
Finally, of course, a ban on hunting rifle ammunition (such as the Kennedy amendment Obama supported) would have been a very effective ban on the use of hunting rifles.

More evidence that Obama is anti gun he has atacked the NRA as such he is atacking all gun owners who are members.

—cut—
Obama Campaign Threatens Legal Action Over NRA Ads

Friday, September 26, 2008

Campaign and DNC Launch Assault On First Amendment!
Earlier this week, NRA-PVF released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama’s longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama’s real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF’s ads. They have sent intimidating cease and desist letters to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama’s radical anti-gun record.

And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF’s ads.

NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign’s despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign’s fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate. For more information, and to see the letter, please click here.

To learn the truth about Barack Obama’s anti-gun record, please visit www.GunBanObama.com. This website is loaded with features and information that you, as a gun owner, need to know. This is a must-see website that you will want to pass along to anyone you know who loves freedom and supports the Second Amendment. While you’re there, don’t forget to take the “OMatch,” compatibility quiz to see if you and Barack are a match.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was trying to convince rural Virginians the other day that he’s a devoted gun owner who will not allow presidential nominee Barack Obama to “fool with my Beretta.”
“Senator Biden must think America’s gun owners are dumber than rocks,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Here is a man who has supported every restrictive gun control and gun ban law that ever landed on his desk, suddenly telling Virginia residents that he’s a gun owner, and very pro-gun.
“Biden tried to sound folksy in Virginia, talking about his ‘little over and under’ Beretta,” Gottlieb noted. “Senator, it’s not your Beretta that concerns American gun owners, but their own Colts, Smith & Wessons, Kimbers, Winchesters, Marlins, Remingtons, Mossbergs, Springfields, Kahrs and Brownings.
“If Biden really does own an over-and-under Beretta, has he fired it lately,” Gottlieb wondered. “What model is it, what’s it chambered for, and where is it? Why does he think that’s a more worthy gun to own than, say, an AR-15, or a Benelli semi-auto? What makes a Beretta shotgun more deserving of protection against Draconian legislation than a .45-caliber Model 1911, a .357 Magnum Ruger Blackhawk, a .50-caliber Thompson/Center or a .22-caliber Colt Diamondback? Would Joe Biden know the difference between any of these guns if he saw one?
“Joe Biden has spent the last three decades on Capitol Hill voting not merely against guns, but against the law-abiding American citizens who own these guns,” Gottlieb stated. “He has voted against their civil rights, and against their traditional values, and now he is running as second fiddle to a Chicago suburbanite who has dismissed such citizens as bitter, and clinging to their guns and religion.
“And now we are supposed to believe that Joe Biden is a gun-toting defender of the Second Amendment, after years of trying to dismantle it,” Gottlieb concluded. “This guy has spent a career in Washington, D.C. assaulting the civil rights of gun owners. Now he’s insulting their intelligence.”
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ( www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman posted here

Judging from the Democratic Party platform, remarks from presidential nominee Barack Obama and his selection of anti-gun Sen. Joseph Biden as a running mate, the long, transparent courtship of gun owners by Democrats is over and instead of a goodbye kiss, there was a slap in the face; the political approximation of a domestic assault.

The party platform tries to patronize gun owners by claiming to “recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.” But then the document quickly reveals that Democrats have changed their tune but not their agenda: “We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban…”

Gun owners know that the ten-year “ban” on so-called “assault weapons” – which included more than 200 types of commonly-owned firearms – had no measurable impact on violent crime, and that reinstating it is all about symbolism rather than substance. They know that gun shows are the source of less than one percent of guns used by violent criminals. They know anti-gunners believe “common-sense laws” include licensing, registration and a surrender of the “right to carry” to the discretionary whims of police chiefs and sheriffs.

The party chose Obama as its standard-bearer. He once served on the board of the vehemently anti-firearms civil rights Joyce Foundation. During his first run for public office he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and semi-automatic rifles. He supports mandatory waiting periods on all gun purchases. He told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in April that “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” insulting millions of armed citizens who care about self-defense in the process.

Gun owners know Biden as an anti-gun extremist. He consistently earns “F” ratings from gun rights organizations. He claimed credit for writing the original legislation to ban semiautomatic sport-utility rifles that are owned by millions of Americans who have harmed nobody.

The proverbial last straw for the firearms community was Obama’s remark during his acceptance speech that “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

The “reality” is that gun rights are the same for everyone, no matter where they live. And gun owners know from experience that Democrats falsely believe that the only way to keep guns away from criminals is to oppressively regulate gun ownership for everyone.

Mr. Obama told his faithful that Sen. McCain “doesn’t get it.” Actually, Democrats “don’t get it.” You do not woo people by treating them like criminals, and you cannot “support” someone’s civil right at the same time you regulate it to irrelevancy.

It is now clear to gun owners that Democrats only asked them to the dance just to get through the door.

And NRA study here.

Also see

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) backed by Pro-Gun Control Institutions

Why does a new report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police read like every gun-ban strategy we’ve heard for the last 10 years? I’m going to describe a group that recently demanded enactment of a sweeping federal gun control agenda.
Let’s see if you can guess who it is.

The group has 22,000 members in more than 100 countries. Membership categories include “city managers, highway safety specialists, psychologists, attorneys, coroners and management analysts,” among others. The group has offices in Europe and the Caribbean, and the group’s website describes its governing board in your choice of English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

Why does a new report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police read like every gun-ban strategy we’ve heard for the last 10 years? To find out, all one has to do is follow the money.

Is it a new United Nations disarmament agency? No, the group is the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), headquartered in the nation’s capital. And the story behind the report is a shadowy web of huge donations, made by an activist foundation in the Midwest, leading straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups, the IACP and even New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

The IACP report, called “Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities,” is nothing more than a rubber stamp, bought and paid for, of the pre-existing agenda for gun ban groups. It is a blueprint the enemies of freedom plan to pursue after the 2008 elections–if they win total control of the White House and Congress.

What compelled the IACP to issue this sweeping report? Follow the money. A note on the cover proudly declares that the report was issued “with support from the Joyce Foundation.”

That’s a familiar name to longtime readers. The Joyce Foundation has pumped tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of gun ban groups over the years. The Violence Policy Center (VPC), an unashamed promoter of a total ban on handguns, collected more than $1 million of Joyce money just in 2005 and 2006. In 2000, the Joyce Foundation paid a VPC advisor and former Handgun Control, Inc. board member to edit a “Second Amendment Symposium” issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review. That slim volume contains nearly half the anti-individual rights articles ever published on the Second Amendment.

The IACP newsletter proudly notes that the Joyce Foundation has “made more than $30 million in grants to groups seeking public health solutions that offer the promise of reducing gun deaths and injuries in America.”

This year, the Joyce Foundation invested heavily in IACP. They paid IACP over $500,000 to host “The Great Lakes States Summit on Gun Violence,” and then to issue the report from the conference. That comes out to nearly $11,000 per page, but the Joyce Foundation got what it paid for–no surprise given the report’s thank you to Joyce Foundation Communications Director Mary O’Connell for “her editing, writing and consistent work to produce this report.”

In open defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the
Washington D.C. gun control law, the City Council passed an
“emergency” law that keeps in place almost all of the law that was
ruled unconstitutional.

For example, though the Court ruled specifically that the city’s ban on
handguns violated the Second Amendment, most handguns still
cannot be registered because D.C. bureaucrats classify
semi-automatic pistols as “machine guns.”

Even Dick Heller, who brought the case against Washington’s gun
ban, was rejected when he tried to register his handgun because any
“bottom loading” firearm is a “machine gun” according to the D.C.
police.

Similarly, while the Court found that “the requirement that any lawful
firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a “trigger lock” is
unconstitutional, the city kept in place the “lock up your safety” law
unless the resident is in immediate danger.

The D.C. Council is thus rendering the Supreme Court victory for gun
rights meaningless, while leaving residents defenseless.

Congress needs to repeal the District’s gun control law to ensure that the
Supreme Court decision is not a hollow victory.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has
the authority and responsibility to govern the District. It can simply
repeal the District’s onerous gun law.

Not surprisingly, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has no
intention of allowing the D.C. gun ban repeal legislation to come to the
floor, even though it is cosponsored by more than half of the members
of Congress.

To free the bill from the Speaker’s death grip, Representative Mark
Souder (R-IN) has filed a discharge petition to bring the bill directly to
the floor. Rep. Souder needs 218 cosigners for the petition to be
successful. There are currently 109 signers.

There are not many days left in this legislative session, so it is vital that
the discharge petition moves quickly. Please contact your representative
and urge him or her to support the repeal of the D.C. gun ban and to
sign the Souder discharge petition. You can visit the Gun Owners
Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to
send your Reps. the pre-written e-mail message.

Acknowledging that public opinion is against them and that a loss in the Supreme Court of the United States is likely eminent, gun control groups are regrouping and preparing to try new tactics to accomplish their unpopular goals.

“We’ve lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means,” campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. “Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically.” He later went on to say, “We’re expecting D.C. to lose the case, but this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side.”

See story here.

At the same time another guncontrol nut is asking for mexico style random gun trafic stops to search for guns because as he says guns are illegal and if we can have random trafic stops for drunks we can do random gun checks.

The Jena 6 still violating the law while on probation.

On May 10, Mychal Bell — who pleaded guilty Dec. 3, 2007, to a juvenile charge of second-degree battery — was stopped in Olla on U.S. Highway 165 and cited for speeding and having no vehicle insurance, Olla Police reported. The vehicle was towed, as it wasn’t properly insured.
Authorities said Bell had received a weekend pass from his Monroe foster family — part of his sentence — but was to stay in Monroe and have his mother visit him there.

Court documents allude to recent probation violations for juvenile defendant Jesse Ray Beard, although details about the incidents aren’t public record. One filing says Beard wanted to go to a “strict boarding school” at his own expense as a consequence for alleged probation violations and that the Office of Youth Development supported the placement.

In February, Bryant Purvis was charged with assault causing bodily injury after an incident at his new school, Hebron High in Carrollton, Texas.

According to the police report, Purvis walked up to another student from behind, grabbed his neck with one hand, choked him and pushed his head into a bench.

LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters has filed a motion requesting that he be able to bring the Texas arrest into Purvis’ trial here.

Carwin Jones, 19, of Trout was arrested May 10 and charged with simple battery, a misdemeanor, in connection with a May 7 incident in which, according to the LaSalle Parish Sheriff’s Office, Jones was alleged to have hit a 21-year-old man from behind as several other men came toward the man and his friends with baseball bats. Jones remained jailed at the LaSalle Parish Jail until May 12, when he was released on $1,000 bond.
This isn’t the first arrest for Jones since his arrest in connection with the Dec. 4, 2006, attack on Justin Barker. On Jan. 24, he was arrested and charged with remaining on the premises after being forbidden, a misdemeanor.

Representative Bill Sali is introducing a bill to send a message to
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(BATFE) that freedom still means something in this country.

As part of its Asset Forfeiture training program for agents, the
BATFE ordered 2,000 Leatherman tools inscribed with the words
“Always Think Forfeiture.” The program urges agents to focus
on seizing private property.

Rep Sali believes the agency should be thinking ‘Freedom,’ not
‘Forfeiture.’ The Idaho Republican complained about the program
and recieved a letter from Acting ATF Director Michael Sullivan,
who apologized for the “confusion” over the issue.

While Rep. Sali appreciated the apology, he said that, “My
constituents deserve to know the truth about this marketing program,
which has been interpreted by many Idahoans as anti-gun and
anti-private property.”

The agency halted distribution of the tools in the face of public
outcry, but “[t]he fact remains that the ATF thought it was OK to
think ‘Always Think Forfeiture’ instead of focusing on
protecting our constitutional rights,” Sali said.

In a letter to his fellow Congressmen, Sali noted that “the inscription
raises serious concerns to law-abiding citizens as to the intent of an
ATF agent who is performing investigations, particularly with
respect to law-abiding gun owners.”

Rep. Sali plans to introduce the ‘Always Think Freedom’ bill
sometime next week. The bill will prohibit the agency from
making purchases of tool kits “on which any reminder of
forfeiture appears.”

Action: Please urge your Representative to become an original
cosponsor of the “Always Think Freedom Act.”

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Rep. the
pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

I urge you to become an original co-sponsor of Rep. Bill Sali’s
“Always Think Freedom” bill, which will be introduced shortly.

As part of its Asset Forfeiture training program for agents, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
ordered 2,000 Leatherman tools inscribed with the words
“Always Think Forfeiture.” The program urges agents to focus
on seizing private property.

The agency, which has been the frequent subject of
congressional inquiry into its heavy-handed law enforcement
tactics, should focus on protecting our Constitutional rights.

Rep. Sali’s bill will simply prohibit the agency from making
purchases of tool kits “on which any reminder of forfeiture
appears.”

Please support this bill by signing on as an original
cosponsor.

Sincerely,

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, OBAMA SPEAKS FROM “PRO-GUN” SCRIPT

While Running For President, Obama Claims To Support Gun Rights:

During Debate, Obama Claimed Respect For Gun Rights. Obama: “You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership, that all of us saw, as we travel around rural parts of the country. And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot.” (Sen. Barack Obama, 2008 Democrat Presidential Debate, Las Vegas, NV, 1/15/08)

BUT OBAMA HAS A LONG ANTI-GUN RECORD

Before Running For President, Obama Expressed Support For Banning Many Types Of Firearms:

On 1996 Questionnaire, Obama Answered “Yes” To Question About His Support For Legislation To “Ban The Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.” Question: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? [Obama's Response:] Yes.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/10/96)

Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: “I Don’t Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns.” John Lott: “In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said ‘Oh, you are the gun guy.’ I responded ‘Yes, I guess so.’ He simply responded that ‘I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.’” (John R. Lott Jr., “Obama And Guns: Two Different Views,” Fox News, www.foxnews.com, 4/7/08)

In 2003, Obama Voted In Support Of Legislation That “Would Have Banned Most Of The Privately Held Hunting Shotguns, Target Rifles, And Black Powder Rifles” In Illinois. “[I]n 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

SB 1195 Caused Furor; Would Have Banned Shotguns, Muzzleloaders. “The gun furor basically revolves around Senate Bill 1195, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Antonio Munoz. It would ban shotguns with a bore of .50 caliber or more, the net result, according to numerous interpretations, being to outlaw a variety of shotguns, and even muzzleloaders.” (Lew Freedman, Op-Ed, “Hunters Need Not Worry-Yet,” Chicago Tribune, 4/19/03)

Now, Obama Believes D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional:

Obama Believes The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. “[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama
said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local
communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is
constitutional.’” (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, “Court To Hear Gun Case,” Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

NOTE: The D.C. Gun Ban Bars Handguns, Operable Rifles And Shotguns In The Home. “The D.C. law, like laws in Chicago and New York City, doesn’t explicitly bar handguns; it requires that all residents register them with the city. Since the city stopped registering handguns in 1976, no one who hadn’t registered by then can have a handgun at home. The result, effectively, is a ban. D.C.’s law also bars residents from keeping any other firearm, such as a rifle or a shotgun, loaded or assembled.” (Emma Schwartz, “The Right To Bear Arms,” U.S. News & World Report, 3/6/08)

OBAMA HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF ANTI-GUN POSITIONS

Before Running For President, Obama Came Out In Support Of Many Anti-Gun Policies:

Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes. “Adding even further skepticism to Obama’s claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Institute — an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Legislation “Drafted To Protect Homeowners From Prosecution In Cases Where They Used A Firearm To Halt A Home Invasion.” “[O]bama cast a total of 4 votes in opposition to SB2165. SB2165 was drafted to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion. Once again, Obama found himself on the wrong side of the issue as overwhelming majorities of both the House and the Senate voted in favor of this important legislation. Obama’s steadfast opposition to SB2165 is indicative of his misplaced priorities on issues of self-defense
and personal firearm ownership.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

The Bill Was In Response To Homeowner Who Shot Burglar Who Had Broken Into His Home – Twice. “The state handgun bill Obama voted against was a response to the case of a suburban Chicago restaurant owner who shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice.” (Mike Robinson, “Keyes Rips Obama Over Opposition To Gun Bill,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-empt State Concealed Carry Laws. “In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.” (Liam Ford, “Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns,” Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)

Obama Recently Spoke Out Against Concealed Carry. Obama: “I am not in favor of concealed weapons … I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” (Mike Wereschagin and David M. Brown, “Candidates’ Gun Control Positions May Figure In Pa. Vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08)

In 2001, Obama Voted Against And Helped Defeat Bill To Allow Individuals To Carry Concealed Weapon When They Have Valid Order Of Protection Against Another Person. (S.B. 604, Senate Floor Third Reading, Failed, 29-27-0, 4/4/01, Obama Voted Nay)

“After Extensive Debate On The Senate Floor … State Sen. Barack Obama (D-13) Helped Defeat A Bill That Would Allow People Who Receive An Order Of Protection To Possess And Carry A Concealed Firearm.” (Todd Spivak, “Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm Bill,” Hyde Park Herald, 4/11/01)
Obama: “Concealed-carry laws would only increase the problem of handgun violence and ultimately make the streets less safe everywhere … It was a bad idea and I’m glad it failed…” (Todd Spivak, “Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm Bill,” Hyde Park Herald, 4/11/01)

In The U.S. Senate, Obama Voted Twice To Hold Manufacturers, Distributors, Dealers And Importers Of Firearms And Ammunition Liable For The Acts Of Criminals. (S. 397, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 66-32: R 53-1; D 13-30; I 0-1, 7/26/05, Obama Voted Nay; S. 397, CQ Vote #219: Passed 65-31: R 50-2; D 14-29; I 1-0, 7/29/05, Obama Voted Nay)

Obama Has Received “F” Ratings From The National Rifle Association: In 2004, 2002 And 1998, Obama Received “F” Ratings From The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. The NRA has given Obama 3 “F’s.” (National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; 1998 Illinois National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Political Preference Chart, p.2)

From this URL

Well they don’t know they said that.

See story here “US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war “

The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.

Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier’s helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today’s fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today’s battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run.

Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day.

What the AP doesn’t understand that this is the same shell used by the domestic assult rifles that the media said was only designed to kill.

So when you are a liberal reporter its a bad killing gun if I have one but if it makes the Army look bad then its a weak gun that wont kill.

“They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.”

also see this story here

I see dead people!..Aaaaaa………………..

Hello double standard
Michelle (the smart one, not the bitter one), has a post up today pointing to this PowerLine piece detailing yet another gaffe made thus far by Barack Obama:

Barack Obama must be the most gaffe-prone politician in memory. Today, he delivered a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico. After greeting the local Democratic Party dignitaries, he began:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

Memorial Day honors those who have died in our nation’s military service. Is it possible that Obama does not know this? Sometimes the things that come out of his mouth defy understanding.

Imagine, if you would, the hullabaloo if any Republican, much less one already a President or one running for the same, had been making the same mistakes, time and again. Just imagine.

Full story here