Gun Control Advocates Pushing Hard to Create More Helpless Victims

Handguns prohibited

Handguns prohibited (Photo credit: Jim Carson)

The UK banned handguns in 1997. The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead. Sounds eerily familiar doesn’t it.
The last estimate I saw on cia world fact book (which granted … was a few years back) was 6 million illegal handguns in the UK. Contrary to what you read in Wikipedia (or hear in the American drive-by media), BBC reported that, “A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.”
Research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance‘s Campaign for Shooting, concluded that the UK’s existing gun laws merely targeted legitimate users of firearms … and did nothing to prevent criminals from accessing and using guns for illegal purposes.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out its own research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. These are facts and numbers … not emotion-based arguments.
Real numbers show that American states and cities that issue concealed carry permits see a real drop in violent crime; while gun-free zones merely provide good hunting grounds for sociopathic killers. Connecticut already had draconian gun laws in place … have you tried to legally own a gun in Connecticut.
The argument for gun control is based on emotions … fear; and  labeling … and then demonizing an inanimate object all the while ignoring the real problem; the deplorable state of morality in America and the refusal of society to hold individuals accountable for their own actions. The argument against stricter gun laws is based on real numbers and historical evidence.
Part of the problem is that too many people get their ” facts” from the liberal mass media, and so they only hear the demonizing. Yes, this horrifying incident in Connecticut was tragic beyond belief.  But many facts about the circumstances of the case are not being discussed.  Instead, we have liberals screaming for more restrictions and gun bans … and disarming law-abiding, honest Americans.  In reality, if they succeed, they will only succeed in creating more potential victims and will not impact criminals in the least!
By definition … criminals do not obey laws.

Media Matters Founder Wants Armed Protection … just not for you!

Glock

The founder of Media Matters, David Brock, recently accepted more than $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation.  This money was specifically earmarked to promote a $600,000 initiative on “gun and public safety issues” which is simply liberal double-speak for “more gun ban efforts.”  However, it seems David Brock walks the streets of Washington protected by a Glock toting personal assistant/bodyguard!  If it weren’t for the hypocrisy of most liberals, this might make it a little awkward for the group the next time it seeks a donation from a gun control advocacy group.

It is also typical that the liberal champion, David Brock, feels his life is certainly worthy of protection under the Second Amendment (hence, the bodyguard armed with a Glock).   It is just you and I whose lives, it seems, Brock deems are not worthy of the very same protection!  I remember comedian Rosie O’Donnell having the same view.  She also felt that the Second Amendment should go away … just as long as she got to travel around with her armed bodyguards.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/16/brock-and-glock-armed-men-guarded-media-matters-boss-as-took-400000-gun-control/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz1nKMRS200

Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future

Obama

Image by art_es_anna via Flickr

Accoring to Sam Stein of the Huffington Post,  Obama is preparing to soon try and change gun laws in this country.  Of course, because he will be unable to get a bill through Congress, he will attempt to do it illegally … by imperial decree (oops … my bad!  I meant Executive Order).   Two quotes from recent history should be remembered by real patriotic Americans:

  • “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.“— Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
  • This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” — Adolph Hitler, Chancellor, Germany, 1933

Just a little food for thought!  Especially since it is conservatives who are always being compared to Nazis by the progressive-liberals and the drive-by media!

The True Source Of the Second Amendment

 

Second Amendment

It amazes me just how many Americans do not understand the concept of Second Amendment Rights and where  this American right originates.  Even American’s who support the Second Amendment, own firearms, join the NRA, and exercise their rights under the Second Amendment daily often misunderstand its origins.  

What is scary to me, however, is that the left-wing liberals certainly seem to, at least on one level, understand the reason that the Founding Fathers  wrote Second Amendment and included it in the Bill of Rights.  That is why they are so intent on eliminating the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Of  course, you have to understand that most liberals in this country are not liberals at all … at least not in the true sense of the liberal ideology.  True liberals, as a general rule, would not support gun control because it is a violation of a personal freedom ….  and all liberals certainly claim to strongly support individual freedom.  This is the root of their support for the gay movement, women’s rights to murder 1.37 million American babies each year, legalizing drugs, PETA, terrorist’s rights, and the drive-by media’s right to commit libel and slander against conservatives with impunity while openly supporting their chosen liberal politicians during elections.  

In this country, the term liberal is most often used to hide the true identity of anti-American movements.  The ACLU, for example, originated as a communist organization dedicated to bringing about a peaceful transition  to a communist American state.  When the ACLU’s founding members discovered that the term communist was working against them because of the stigma attached to it, they simply changed their name.  

Many other “liberals” in this country are simply socialists; but because this term also still has a stigma attached to it, they choose to hide behind the term “liberal.”  

Then we also have the liberal “fascists”  … like Barack Obama quickly seems to be turning out to be.  What kind of government allows private ownership of business, but tells you how to run them …..   look it up!

So, what does this have to do with gun control.  Despite the fact that many cool-aid drinking liberal followers live in a dream world where we all sit around the global campfire singing Kumbaya,  their leaders (the movers and shakers of the liberal elitist movement) are actually very intelligent.  They understand that, with the exception of California and the New England states, the backbone of real America is still made up of bitter common folk who cling to their Bibles and their Guns;  and … that these bitter (or shall we say Freedom Loving Rugged Individualists) simply do not want to live in a socialist (or a fascist) nanny state.  Their solution, then, is to lie, cheat, misinterpret, play on fears, elect any and all rabid anti Second Amendment politicians (or  judges) they can find, use their control of the mass media, and otherwise work to dissolve our Second Amendment rights.

 

America's 1st Freedom

 

Because of this on-going assault on the Second Amendment, we often hear some really odd soundbites such as

its people like you who will hand the White House over to some COMMI DEMOCRAT, who will elect some liberal Supreme Court Justices … and they will destroy the Second Amendment  

or even such nonsense as …  

the jack-booted feds will roll you up like an old carpet.  If you think you can resist them then you will join the ranks of the Branch Davidians and the martyrs of Ruby Ridge.  All the good sheeple will fall in line … or die.  

Rhetoric such as this is silly and misses the point entirely.

Implicit in comments such as these is the idea that our rights, including those validated under the Second Amendment, are somehow granted to us by the 9 old men and women on the Supreme Court; or from our legislature; or from our president.  Implicit in these comments is the idea that the right to Keep And Bear Arms actually comes from the Second Amendment itself.  This is a fallacy.  The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, the legislature, and the presidency are all thing created by men, and thus, they can be taken away by other men.

 

Liberty

 

The truth is that the Second Amendment (and the other rights listed in the bill of Rights) simply acknowledges and allows us to protect our Inalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty, and  the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Depending on your personal belief system, these rights would be granted to us as either Natural Rights based on our condition of being Human Beings …. or as Divine Rights granted to us by God.  

Such rights are yours from the moment of your birth and cannot be taken away by other men … unless you allow that to happen.

Of course we can write our congressmen, join the NRA or the GOA, write letters to the editor, argue cases in court, and work hard to elect pro-gun legislators … and we should certainly be doing all these things.  However, our Second Amendment rights are not based on the outcome of these mechanisms.  Those “liberals” currently in power like Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano, Sarah Bradey, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and soon to be Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor among others, would certainly want to have you believe that it does; and will certainly work to convince you that it does … but, in truth …. it does not.

Our Right To Bear Arms rests entirely upon our willingness to stop, by whatever means necessary, anyone who attempts to confiscate them. What these other mechanisms do is simply postpone any coming day of reckoning … which is certainly worth doing as long as it is feasibly possible.  

However, any political or governmental entity acting to confiscate or deny an honest, law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms is acting in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a legitimate government agency.

 

God given. Not negotiable.

 

And for those of you who will certainly, without thinking or doing any research, chime in and exclaim … “but that’s not what the Second Amendment means” …  “its about militias, not individuals” … ” it is outdated because it was written 200 years ago” …  you should remember that your precious Freedom of Speech was acknowledged and guaranteed at precisely the same time

… and take the time to look at and actually read some of the historical quotes listed below.  You might gain some “intelligence.”

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322) 

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) 

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.) 

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) 

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) 

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) 

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) 

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) 

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) 

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) 

“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)) 

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) 

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) 

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) 

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) 

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) 

“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) 

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..) 

“The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386) 

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) 

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) 

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939) 

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson) 

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington) 

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967]) 

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,) 

“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]) 

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]) 

“Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755]) 

“The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New-England) 

“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) 

(The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, “Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)] 

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823] 

“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46″) 

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]) 

“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979]) 

“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”) 

“As much as I oppose the average person’s having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.” [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.] 

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] 

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)] 

” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] 

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)] 

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] 

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] 

73% Of Americans Support The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Founding Fathers

Do you need more proof that a majority of Americans support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? What about the results of a Gallup poll, which were reported in a March 27, Gallup.com article. The poll shows that an overwhelming majority of the United States public … 73% … believes that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms.

For most real Americans, these results come as no surprise. In fact, the Gallup poll reflects comparable results from a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll carried out from December 6 to December 9 in 2007, which found that 65% of Americans believed the Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms.

Other recent polls have shown that Americans support gun rights. A Zogby International poll for Associated Television News, conducted between December 13 and December 17 in 2007 found that 27% of voters would be more likely to support a candidate endorsed by NRA (through its PAC, NRA Political Victory Fund). That survey showed that NRA ranks above Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, the AFL-CIO, Oprah Winfrey, and Barbara Streisand in influencing voters! And another Zogby International poll conducted earlier in 2007 found that 66% of the American voting public rejects the idea that new gun control laws are needed.

The results of this latest poll make clear where the majority of Americans stand, and confirm what other polls have consistently shown: Americans overwhelmingly support firearm rights and ownership.

Clinton & Obama Wage War On Law-Abiding American Citizens!

You would expect that, in America, if a violent criminal broke into your home with the intent of robbing or killing you, our government would defend your right to defend yourself. You might also expect that our police would arrest that criminal, our criminal system would prosecute and sentence that criminal, and then our prison system would lock him up. But, unfortunately, that is simply not the case.

Home Invasions

Thousands of armed, violent foreign criminals are crossing our borders and entering our country. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, more than 595, 000 criminal aliens have crossed our borders into America and they are still here. These criminals are not immigrants working hard to make a living for their families. These criminals are violent and deal in drugs, human trafficking, prostitution, grand larceny, brutal attacks, rape, murder, and vendetta killings of anyone who stands in their way. They may even be smuggling terrorists across our borders.

To make matters worse, Federal prosecutors can’t even deport them if they come from certain countries. It seems that we have laws on our books that prohibit the deportation of violent criminals to countries that do not have an extradition treaty with the U.S.; … this includes countries like Iran, a known exporter of criminals and terrorists. … El Salvador, which refuses to take back ultra-violent MS-13 gang members, … and others like Cuba, Jamaica, and Nigeria

MS-13

Someday, hopefully, our government may wake up and pass a real and comprehensive illegal immigration bill and take real steps to secure our borders … but don’t hold your breath! It won’t happen under the current administration and it definitely will not happen under a Clinton or Obama administration.

Politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and Ted Kennedy believe that the answer to the criminal alien problem is taking away your right, under the Second Amendment, to defend yourself with a firearm.

Schumer, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy

Clinton, Obama, and Kennedy work to block “Castle Doctrine” laws that protect your right to defend your home and family with a firearm. They work to oppose laws that give you the right to carry, and they work to prevent a nationwide law that validates your right-to-carry permit in every state. They even support efforts to give local officials the power to confiscate your guns in time of emergency.

That, my friends, is purely and simply, a violation of our constitutional rights as Americans … and … pure insanity!

After Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans officials went door-to-door confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless while the 9-1-1 system was down and useless, and violent criminals, including known criminal aliens, were running rampant.

1775 & 2005

Hillary Clinton’s answer was to be one of the sixteen Senators who voted to allow the government to come into our homes and confiscate our guns. Somehow she always manages to turn violent crime perpetrated by criminals into an argument for taking guns away from law-abiding citizens … but has she ever taken tough action against criminals, or criminal aliens? Of course not!

In the seven years Hillary Clinton has been a Senator, she has not supported one piece of legislation to put criminal aliens, and other violent criminals behind bars. When it comes to criminals, the only bill she has sponsored was a bill to restore voting rights to pedophiles, rapists, murders, robbers, and other violent felons.

And New York Governor Elliott Spitzer who, like Hillary Clinton, has done nothing to take violent criminals off the street … joins Hillary Clinton in this lunacy. His get tough on crime answer is to give them driver’s licenses!

In the 40 states where law-abiding citizens have the right to carry, crime has dropped, and citizens have the means to protect themselves from criminal aliens … but not in New York!

Right to Carry Map

And if Barack Obama gets his way … not in Illinois either. When Obama was a State Senator, he sponsored a bill requiring law-abiding citizens to appear before a police chief to receive permission to purchase a gun. Obama also served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation, a rabid anti-gun money machine.

Obama, Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, and Feinstein are all the same. Anti-gun politicians always pretend they can’t hear you when you ask about violent criminals and criminal laws. But with over 595,000 violent criminals already in the country, these anti-American, gun-hating politicians are actually putting American lives in danger.

Of the 595,000 foreign criminals roaming our streets, the Federal government says that approximately 226,000 have previous U.S. convictions. They average 13 prior arrests … the majority of the crimes involving shocking acts of violence and depravity.

In 2006 alone, a frightening 26,000 criminal aliens attempting to enter our country were linked to violent crimes previously committed on U.S. soil. And what was their punishment? Border agents have no power to arrest them under current law, so they send them home … giving these dangerous criminals another chance to sneak into our country to commit further crimes against Americans.

Today, we are confronting the most dangerous criminals to ever enter our homeland. Our borders can’t stop them. Our prosecutors can’t try them, and our laws say we can’t put them away for good in U.S. prisons. All we can do is send them back home, leaving them free to re-enter our country and commit more heinous crimes. And … these politicians want to leave law-abiding Americans like you and me disarmed and defenseless against their violence.

I say that a politician, or a government, that values the rights of illegal immigrants and violent criminals more than the rights of its law-abiding citizens, and actively works to suppress the rights of citizens affirmed and guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, does not have a legitimate right to be in power and may, in fact, be guilty of crimes against the citizens of this country … including treason! And … in fact, Hillary Clinton, and her philandering husband Bill, have been associated with criminal activities and “mysterious” deaths since their days in the Governor’s mansion in Arkansas.

Obama Is No Patriot!

These left –wing, secular-progressive liberal democrats are working to make over 80 million law-abiding Americans … outlaws … with their unconstitutional assault on American rights and American sovereignty. That may truly end up being a grave mistake on their part!

Calm Down People

By now we know that 18 people have been injured and reports are saying 5 dead in a shooting at Northern Illinois University. Ok … people calm down and take a few deep breaths. Got it under control now? Good. Let’s calmly think this over. So an individual walked into a lecture hall which can hold up to 200 people, armed with a shotgun and pistol, and opened fire.

Now I can hear the speeches already by certain “liberal” politicians who are seeking office, they will say something along the lines of “This is a great tragedy and my heart goes out to all of the people who are affected by this event.” (or something along those lines) They might even take the time to express their support for increased handgun legislation, or put forward a plan of their own that they would promise to implement as soon as they get elected. However, I am a college student, I am familiar with these type of lecture halls, and I know that If a person walked into a lecture hall on my campus and started opening fire one person from any point in that hall has an almost perfect shot to another part of that hall, so if that one person was a licensed handgun carrier and was allowed to carry on campus, then that person could help to stop a shooter before he injured many people.

As a counter to the “liberal” outburst I foresee, I would throw my support behind a Congressional bill that makes it legal for any college student, or employee to carry their legally licensed firearm on campus. As a method of enforcement, if there is a school that ignores this new law then Congress should then have the power to withdraw Federal funding from this school. I am tired of “liberals” screaming about their constitutional rights and the supposed rights of the Guantanamo detainees while ignoring the rights of actual US Citizens.  I should be able to exercise my right to defend myself, and my friends the right to defend themselves, without having to worry about getting kicked out of school for exercising our basic Constitutional rights.

Another Reason To End U.S. Support For The United Nations

While Rebecca Peters and the United Nations work diligently to trample the Second Amendment Rights of free American citizens, they also turn their backs on the abused Karamojong tribesmen in Uganda fighting a brutal dictatorship to keep their only means of self-defense and survival.

Under the guise of stopping arms related human rights violations, international gun ban groups are working hard to push an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) through the United Nations. They argue that this treaty is needed because arms are often used as a tool to violate human rights.

This is true, but more often than not, the violations are perpetrated by the governments … not the citizens! The Burmese government, a military dictatorship, has been torturing and killing Buddhist monks and other pro-rights activists. Burma, by the way, has a strict gun control law dating back to 1951. The Burmese president can ban any gun by fiat, and any person caught possessing a banned gun is presumed guilty of high treason … and must prove his innocence.

Anti-Semitic UN

What the anti-gun media won’t tell you, however, is that an important goal of the Arms Trade Treaty is an international ban on the sale of arms, including components for making guns to Israel … a steadfast and long time American ally.

Nor does the anti-gun media point out that another target of the ATT is the United States … because our gun and self-defense laws are, according the UN Human Rights Commissions, a violation of international human rights. According to the UN, allowing a woman to save herself from rape by shooting the rapist is a human rights violation.

However, the most glaring omission by the anti-gun media is its complete silence about how the gun control agenda itself has so often been used as a tool and a means to violate human rights.

In the borderlands of Uganda, where cattle rustlers have become a serious problem, the Karamojong tribesmen have learned, the hard way, that cows and guns are equally indispensable – a gun needs to be readily accessible in order to protect their cattle herds.

Yoweri Museveni

Controlled by Ugandan strongman, Yoweri Museveni, the UPDF (an acronym for the wildly inaccurate title of Ugandan Peoples Defense Forces) has, at the urging of the United nations, commenced what anti-gun-lobbies euphemistically call “forced disarmament.” These “forced disarmament” techniques include rape, torture, killing, and the systematic looting and destruction of Karamojong homes.

So … let me see … according to some at the UN … and global gun-ban movements like Amnesty International, Control Arms, Oxfam and IANSA … the raping, torturing, killing and looting perpetrated by the UPFD is somehow not a violation of human rights … but the American woman who shoots a rapist to save herself from being raped is somehow violating human rights … go figure!

The UN’s new service did eventually admit, in May of 2007, that efforts to “forcibly disarm” about 20 million pastoralists in the Horn of Africa, who possess an estimated 5 million firearms, have failed … and that forcible disarmament has been an abject failure.

Karamojong Tribesman

The few UN personnel who have reported on the gross human rights abuses perpetrated by the government and the UPDF in Uganda’s gun control campaign deserve, at least, some respect. However … Amnesty International, Control Arms, Oxfam and IANSA each remain strangely silent about the issue … even though each group was hand delivered a report on the abuses at the UN gun control conference in July of 2007.

In the meantime, the UPDF continues its human rights violations of killing, rape, torture, looting, and destruction … all in the name of gun control … not only in Uganda, but now … also in Karamojong regions of Kenya.

If the true purpose of the proposed Arms Trade Treaty is protect human rights … rather than set the stage for arms embargoes against the U.S. and its ally, Israel … the ATT will need to address the problem of arms possessed by armies like the UPDF and the Burmese government, and the many human rights atrocities they commit in the name of gun control.

Cahrlton Heston

It does not seem likely that a single Karamojong man, woman or child has ever heard of former NRA President Charlton Heston … yet somehow they certainly seem to share in his sentiment: From my cold, dead hands.”

How does the United Nations justify human rights atrocities committed under the auspices of its “forced disarmament” international gun control policies and its anti-semitic policies …. and where does it think it derives the authority to take away the rights of American citizens under our own U.S. Constitution.

It is just another example of the corruption and pandering of the UN to anti-American agendas. It is time for the UN to go … the $3 billion a year the U.S. (the largest contribution of any member nation) is constantly being used against American interests … and would certainly be better spent somewhere else!

Empty Holsters And Other News

Whose Afraid Of An Empty Holster?

Student With Empty Holster

Should students have less freedom and safety than other citizens simply because they attend college? Many students at America’s universities are asking this same question: Why are they not allowed to defend themselves from campus attacks?

College students are mature and responsible enough to cast a vote, fight a war, own a gun, carry a gun, and exercise every other right of citizenship exercised by other adult citizens … then why should they be forced to go unarmed and be defenseless at institutions of higher learning?

While our law makers debate, delay, argue and defend the status quo, far too many college students are being raped, mugged, and robbed at gun and knife point … or they are caught alone and outnumbered by punk gangster wannabes!

There is no need to change current gun laws … simply give people on college campuses the same rights they have everywhere else.

Of course … anti-gun nuts will argue that guns will start going off randomly and students will break out into gunfights all the time. This argument, of course, ignores the fact that people who get concealed carry permits are law-abiding citizens … and the gangster wannabes already have illegal guns anyway.

Many law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits are already permeating the society … folks just don’t realize it because of the “concealed carry” part … and they do not “break out into gunfights.” However … they can protect themselves.

A group called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus are leading the fight and wearing empty holsters to protest state laws and student codes of conduct that prohibit them from exercising their Second Amendment rights even though they have a concealed carry permit.

So far, Utah is the only state that expressly allows the Right to Carry on public college campuses thanks to a 2004 law allowing the Right to Carry on all state property … and Utah has not disappeared in a blaze of gunfire.

Sadly … a bill that would have required colleges in Virginia to allow Right to Carry permit holders to exercise that right on campuses died in committee not long before the Virginia Tech tragedy where an armed maniac killed 27 students and 5 faculty members. If a few of those students or faculty members had been legally armed … perhaps there would have been a few less funerals to attend.

Though no longer a student, I am a staff member at an American university … I applaud their efforts and am supporting them!

Obama the Unifier!

The independent National Journal ranked John Kerry as the “Most Liberal” the year before he lost the race for the Presidency.

Barack Obama

Senator Barack Obama, now in his 3rd year of serving in the Senate, has taken the title of “More Liberal than Kerry, Kennedy and Hillary.” According to the ratings, Hillary Clinton comes in at #16.

I will never understand Obama’s claim that he is a unifier … and that only he will be able to bridge the gap between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. Obama’s policies and priorities come straight from the progressive liberal play book.

Of course Obama talks about bringing together Republicans, Independents, and Democrats … but how exactly is that going to work? Is Obama somehow going to retreat from the positions that Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards held. I think not!

I might buy some of the unifier rhetoric if Obama became willing to discuss vouchers for School Choice … or dismantling the NEA and its disastrous effect on our public school system, … or when he decides that entitlement programs need real reform that include ideas like personal individual retirement accounts.

Homeless American Soldiers

This is an absolute disgrace to this country! A true American tragedy! Let me say that when I first read this … being a veteran myself … I was really angry … and I mean jump up and down, punch a hole in the wall, storm the White House kind of angry!

A Homeless Vet

The Veterans Administration estimates that there are about 193,000 homeless veterans living in the U.S., veterans who have served this country when asked. Col. David Hunt thinks the number is closer to 500,000.

The fact that there are homeless people in this country is certainly tragic … but I have to agree with Col. David Hunt … the fact that there are homeless veterans in this country is criminal.

These veterans, mostly men, put themselves between us and harms way, fought our wars, spent countless days and nights in the worst hell holes to be found around the globe, and stood at a wall and said “not on my watch.” They have been wounded, tortured, lost limbs, and lost many close friends while protecting our way of life … then they return home to live under a bridge? That simply should not be!!

This is not President Bush’s fault … nor President Clinton’s fault … nor President Reagan‘s fault! According to Col. Hunt, this is every administration’s fault since Valley Forge.

I say that a nation that does not take care of its veterans does not deserve to have them and eventually, is doomed to fall!! I am going to take a close look at what I can do to help … won’t you?

Iran Goes Nuclear!

Nuclear Iran

Some French folks do still have guts! Thérèse Delpech is the director of strategic studies at the French Atomic Energy Commission. She recently delivered a blistering critique of all the key players in the Iran nuclear controversy including Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany, and … of course … the United States.  She also body slams the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Her review of Iran’s nuclear program demolishes the notion that the program was designed for peaceful purposes . Launched in secret 20 years ago, pursued in violation of Iran’s legally binding safeguards obligations, and with no economic justification for the immense investment required … Iran’s program only makes sense as a nuclear weapons program.

Why isn’t Moscow more concerned with a Muslim fundamentalist state on its borders with nuclear armaments? In private, Russian officials agree that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons … but still has provided considerable nuclear assistance to Iran over the last 15 years and continues to block meaningful action against Iran at the UN.

In Moscow, it is sometimes very, very hard to tell the difference between strategic issues, commercial issues, and outright criminal activities!

China has a similar record … but China relies on Iran for 15% of its oil imports and is the world’s second largest consumer of oil. China is also working to establish a diplomatic foothold in the Middle East … and does not want to rock the Iranian boat.

Great Britain, France and Germany lead the international effort to negotiate with Iran, but their efforts have more to do with attempting to prove the superiority of “soft power” to the muscular foreign policy of the Bush administration, than any real attempt to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. So far, due to Russia and China’s efforts in the UN Security Council, their negotiations have met with no measurable success.

And … the U.S.? Distracted by War in Iraq and burdened by all the tragic developments in U.S. – Iranian relations since the fall of the Shah … is, in fact, secretly unwilling to use military force despite all the saber rattling.

It looks to me like last month’s National Intelligence Estimate is far from the last word on this issue … in fact, it is pointless.

 

Clinton, Obama, UN, Verichips, and Australia!

Sorry to be away for a few days. I have been slammed at work. Anyway … here is just a few random thoughts:

Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama

If anyone out there in voter land truly believes that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are supporters of your Second Amendment rights … it is time to wake up and smell the bull#&@$!!

The “Clinton Political Machine” is in the pocket of radical progressive left-wing billionaire George Soros, and good friends with anti-Second Amendment political activist Andrew McKelvey. McKelvey is the money man behind several radical anti-Second Amendment groups that hide behind innocuous names like “Americans for Gun Safety” and “Third Way.” Their recent ploy, having learned that the term “gun control” has become too loaded, is to focus the issue around common sense sounding terms like “gun safety” and “smart gun laws.”

Gun owners can remember the barrage of attacks we come under while President Clinton was in office … and our “newly professed” friend of the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton, voted in support of one of the most egregious violations of Second Amendment rights in this country’s history … the confiscation at gunpoint, by rogue New Orléans police officers, of the firearms of honest, law-abiding citizens seeking only to protect their homes in the chaotic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina while crimes like murder, looting, and rape were rampant … and police protection was no where to be found! Who in the heck does she think she’s fooling?

And what about Barack Obama? Obama voted in favor of mug-shots and fingerprints for law-abiding gun owners and against a bill that would have provided an affirmative defense for homeowners forced to use a firearm to protect themselves and their families during a home invasion or burglary.

However, more indicative of his stance on the Second Amendment is the fact that he served on the 10-member board of directors for the radical anti-gun money machine, the Joyce Foundation.

If either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are elected President of the United States, you can be sure that the future of the Second Amendment will be imperiled by a new barrage of anti-gun laws written by George Soros, Rebecca Peters, and maybe even Rosie O’Donnell.

But … what really “frosts my cookies” is the attempt by Rebecca Peters and the global gun ban movement to use the United Nations as a vehicle to trample American rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The UN has no right of sovereignty over American citizens … and has proven itself to be a corrupt and inept organization riddled with scandal. The UN should be disbanded. Any financial support of the UN by the United States is a waste of our tax dollars and ending it would go along ways toward easing the financial burdens on the American tax payer … to the tune of about $3 billion a year (based on 2004’s contribution).

And yes …. absolutely … we must secure and control our borders! We must know who is crossing into our country … that is simply common sense. If we need immigrant farm workers or other labor … issue a temporary worker’s ID. Let them come here, work, pay taxes, and go home. Let them apply for legal citizenship if they so choose … but they should choose to become Americans!

Issuing a temporary worker’s ID is, however, a long long way from a “verichip” being planted in every American’s hand! There will never, and I repeat … never, be a “verichip” planted in my arm! I will not bow down to the UN … or a global New World Order government … or even a corrupted non-Constitutional American government! I am an American … free … and proud of it. My ancestors fought in the French & Indian War, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, and World War II, and an uncle served in Vietnam. I came from a long line of American patriots. They can take away my rights only after they “pry my gun from my cold dead fingers!”

Australian Flag

God … I love those Australians. They have balls! What happened to Americans with balls like that?

Here is what I am talking about:

Quote by Australian Prime Minister Howard:

  • “We have a right to know whether there is, within any section of the Islamic
    community, a preaching of the virtues of terrorism, whether any comfort or harbour is given to terrorism within that community.”

And here are two quotes from Australian Treasurer Peter Costello:

  • “… this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don’t feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they’d feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.”
  • “… clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It’s not the situation in Australia. It’s not the situation under our Constitution. There’s only one law in Australia. It’s the law that’s made by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There’s no second law. There’s only one law that applies in Australia and Australia expects its citizens to observe it.”

And lastly, a few quotes from Education Minister Dr. Brendan Nelson:

  • “If you want to be an Australian, if you want to raise your children in Australia, we fully expect those children to be taught and to accept Australian values and beliefs,”
  • “We want them to understand our history and our culture, the extent to which we
    believe in mateship and giving another person a fair go, and basically if people don’t want to support and accept and adopt and teach Australian values then, they should clear off.”

God Bless Those Australians!!!!

Now, if they could just get their act together on their draconian gun control laws!!

 

This is America … folks … the land of liberty! If you want to immigrate here … fine … we welcome you as long as you do it legally!

You need to understand our history, our values, our love of freedom and liberty, what it means to be an American … and adopt those values as your own! You can still maintain your own culture and history as well … worship as you please … but, understand, I have, and will protect, the right to do the same.

However, be warned … if you come here to change us … to undermine us … and not to become productive American citizens; … if you are uncomfortable with democracy, liberty, personal responsibility and respecting the rights of others, if you fear freedom of speech, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, then by all means, please feel free to “clear off!”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 226 other followers