PORTAL

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwLWFzEPVonC9dn44qIL5ASSs557asBGgx7UcyiQTM71fl7lk5yXWU1171I-LrLmpmXE6HCd_-iYRcWVrKJOX9kBzoht2EJ1hLyTZJgv5V7mkba99ZfFLH45gZCwNPwD0rHe25AfMkVWcX/s1600/animatfB.gif
Showing posts with label GUN CONTROL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GUN CONTROL. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

START TREATY / NUCLEAR ARMS VOTE IN THE US SENATE


If you go to the link, ALSO NOTICE 3 REPS and 3 DEMS WHO DID NOT CAST A VOTE!!!!!

(I DON'T WANT THEIR EXCUSES FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T VOTE,
I WANT THEM TO TAKE A STAND!)

HERE ARE THE NAMES OF THE 3 OTHER "SELL OUT" REPUBLICANS:
>>>> Not Voting - 5 <<<<
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Gregg (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
Bayh (D-IN)

SO, applying logic;
If you DON'T CAST A DISSENTING VOTE,
isn't that the SAME THING AS TACITLY IMPLYING YOU ARE WITH THE WINNERS?

"I DO NOT WANT THEIR EXCUSES FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T VOTE, I WANT THEM TO TAKE A STAND!"

We need to keep up the pressure on these guys. THIS LITTLE NOTE HERE IS EXACTLY ONE OF THE THE REASONS THE GOVERNMENT WANTS CONTROL OF THE INTERNET AND MEDIA!

This Senate HAS PUSHED THROUGH more LAWS (which aren't Constitutional) than any other Senate has!!  They took GREATER measures to make the greatest number of Americans dependent on the GOVERNMENT than AN OTHER CONGRESS!
THIS SENATE ADVANCED THE SOCIALIST AGENDA, FOLKS!
IS THAT THE "CHANGE" YOU VOTED FOR???

People MIGHT actually WAKE UP IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CONTROL THE INTERNET!

At the risk of sounding REALLY "looney tunes", I'm going to bring something up.
(THINK OUT SIDE OF THE BOX!!!)

I THINK THEY ARE SETTING UP FOR THE 2012 ELECTIONS,

Limit the peoples access to knowlege, make them despirate financially, jump start the animosity, anger and frustration of the people to cause riots (like in Greece, France and Great Brittain), then it
GIVES THEM THE EXCUSE TO INSTITUTE MARTIAL LAW!!!!

Think it's far fetched? Begin to think analytically, IT HAPPENED IN NEW ORLEANS IN 2005 AFTER KATRINA. THE AUTORITIES WENT DOOR TO DOOR COLLECTING THE FIREARMS. I have a friend FROM New Orleans who re-located here AFTER Katrina...

Have you noticed how the timing on all of this stuff
("CONTROL" BILLS IN THE SENATE) is SPEEDING UP?

NET NEUTRALITY- INTERNET & OPINION CONTROL
START TREATY-REMOVING OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OUR SELVES
CONTROL OF THE BANKS
CONTROL OF AUTO MANUFACTURERS
CONTROL OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM
CONTROL OF THE FOOD YOU EAT (ATTEMPTING ANYWAY)
NY CITY ( Bloomberg) already has control of SALT!!!

The Senate is paying off political debts now with OUR freedom, it is sameless.
They THEY go on recess... ITS ALL ABOUT THE SENATES PRORITIES, NOT THE PEOPLES.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

GOP Takes House But Second Amendment Battle is Far From Over

Michigan --(Ammoland.com)- We are happy to see that the Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives as the Grand Old Party as it is known tends to be friendlier to gun related issues.


The people have spoken and this wasn’t the result of some nefarious plot by the insidious gun lobby – which is how the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun organizations are painted in the mainstream media – to take control of the country.

This was the will of the people, which includes hunters, shooters, gun collectors and just every day citizens that believe in the Second Amendment.

But the writing is on the wall, and we’re not out of the woods yet. Nor is it the time however to let down our guard.

The Senate will still include a rogue’s gallery of anti-gun zealots including two Republicans: Senator-Elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a co-sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives of legislation to close the so-called gun show loophole, and Senator-Elect Dan Coast in Indiana had previously served in the U.S. Senate, voting for the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Key anti-gun Democrats retained their seats in the U.S. Senate as well, and these include Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Senator Barbara Boxer of California. New York was also a special case as Kirsten Gillibrand was finally “elected” to the Senate (she had been appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat, which she will now hold for two more years).

Both Schumer and Gillibrand have been foes to gun owners, while Boxer has also been a supporter of gun control. The NRA-endorsed Christine O’Donnell was also defeated by Democrat candidate Chris Coons in Delaware, while Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), who was appointed to finish the term of former Senator Ken Salazar, was elected to a full term. He has co-sponsored gun show loophole legislation.

We happy that Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) was defeated in his re-election bid, as Feingold has had at what best can be described as a mixed record on gun related issues, including voting in favor of background checks at gun shows.


But now is the time to think to the future, but to be on guard today. Only this year the EPA attempted to ban lead ammunition, while the State Department stopped efforts to allow the importation of American M1 made rifles from South Korea. These are both back door gun bans, and while the same mainstream media that sees the NRA as a cabal of evildoers bent on turning America into a Wild West, turn a blind eye to these efforts. Instead the media tries to say that the Democrats and President Obama have done nothing to impose new restrictions.

Except for the attempt to ban lead ammo, the blocked importation of those M1 rifles and the appointment of two fiercely anti-gun rights Supreme Court Justices.

So while this is a time to celebrate our wins with the House, we should be remain on guard.

Peter Suciu is executive editor of FirearmsTruth, a website that tracks and monitors media bias against guns and our Second Amendment rights.

Friday, August 27, 2010

NRA Warns Against New Gun Control Push ...From EPA - THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/nra-warns-against-new-gun-control-push--from-epa.html

THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

Environmental agency ponders whether lead in bullets is poisoning wildlife.

By Paul Bedard

Posted: August 27, 2010


The National Rifle Association, already on high alert over gun control rumors, has gone to battle stations to fight a new scheme before the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict hunters and anglers from using lead bullets, shot and sinkers.



Chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox charges in a letter to the EPA that the effort amounts to "a vehicle to implement gun control



" and could end hunting by most who can't afford the higher priced alternatives to lead.



[See who in Congress gets the most money from gun rights groups.]



At issue: lead, the most widely used material for making bullets, shot, and sinkers. The Center for Biological Diversity says in a 100-page petition that lead used by outdoorsmen and women can be blamed for causing deaths in some 130 species of birds like eagles. "Lead-based bullets fragment on impact, distributing toxic lead particles widely throughout carcasses, and making it impossible for scavenging animals or humans to avoid ingesting lead along with meat," says the center, joined on petition by the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, and two other groups.



The NRA counters that claims lead is causing a horrific toll on wildlife is bogus. The proof, they say, is the population explosion of American Eagles around the nation, including some inside Washington's beltway.



But more importantly, says the NRA, the EPA is barred from regulating ammo or fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act. But the ammo foes think that they have found a way around that by asking the EPA to regulate elements of ammo and the element they want banned is the lead.



Cox said that would counter what Congress has intended in previous laws. "Put another way, if Congress exempts a cow from regulation, one could hardly argue that it nevertheless would allow for regulation of the hide attached to the cow's body," said Cox.



Despite the opposition from the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearm and ammunition industry, the EPA is considering banning lead. It is seeking public comment until Halloween.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/


Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:16 PM


The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.



This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com.
 
American Socialist Voter–

Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy


Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez
[there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].


Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below


Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)




Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)




Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)




House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)  < ADMITTED MUSLIM - SWORN IN WITH A QURAN!
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)

Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Friday, July 2, 2010

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions


Move comes days after Supreme Court
ruling cast doubt on city ban.


Mayor (MORON) "Guns is the problem" Daley


by DON BABWIN
(Associated Press)


CHICAGO — The Chicago City  Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The 45-0 vote came four days after a Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. It will take effect in 10 days.

The ordinance also:

— Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

— Requires residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

— Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

— Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

— Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns in the city — which has been illegal since the city's ban was approved 28
years ago — would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

Residents convicted of violating the city's ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

Though Monday's Supreme Court ruling did not specifically strike down Chicago's handgun ban, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling.

Mayor Richard Daley moved quickly to get a new ordinance in place and has indicated that he expects legal challenges to the new restrictions.

Meanwhile, a northwestern Wisconsin prosecutor said he won't prosecute a range of state weapon violations in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Jackson County District Attorney Gerald R. Fox said in a statement he will no longer prosecute people for carrying uncased or loaded guns in vehicles, carrying concealed weapons, carrying firearms in public buildings or taverns or carrying switchblades and butterfly knives.

Fox said the Supreme Court ruling invalidated Wisconsin's laws against those practices.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Fox is inviting crime into Jackson County and if he won't enforce the state's laws he should be removed from office.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Why Guns Are Good

By John Stossel

Published June 23, 2010 FOXNews.com

You know what the mainstream media think about guns and our freedom to carry them.

Pierre Thomas of ABC: "When someone gets angry or when they snap, they are going to be able to have access to weapons."

Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "I wonder if in a free society violence is always going to be a part of it if guns are available."

Keith Olbermann, also of MSNBC, who usually can't be topped for absurdity: "Organizations like the NRA ... are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country."

"Trying to?" Well, I admit that I bought that nonsense for years. Living in Manhattan, working at ABC, everyone agreed that guns are evil. And that the NRA is evil. (Now that the NRA has agreed to a sleazy deal with congressional Democrats on political speech censorship, maybe some of its leaders areevil, but that's for another column.)

Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means -- hold onto your seat -- lesscrime.

(This will be the topic, by the way, tomorrow night on my Fox Business News show.)

How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year?

Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stoppedbecause would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away.

Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.

This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly.

But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna's parents were two of the 23 people killed. (20 more were wounded.)

Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law, at the time, did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She's confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)

Today, 40 states issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns (Vermont and Alaska have the most libertarian approach: no permit needed. Arizona is about to join that exclusive club.) Every time a carry law was debated, anti-gun activists predicted outbreaks of gun violence after fender-benders, card games and domestic quarrels.

What happened?

John Lott, in his book "More Guns, Less Crime," explains that crime fell by 10 percent in the year after the laws were passed . A reason for the drop in crime may have been that criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might be armed.

Indeed, criminals in states with high civilian gun ownership were the most worried about encountering armed victims.

In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, almost half of all burglaries occur when residents are home. But in the United States, where many households contain guns, only 13 percent of burglaries happen when someone's at home.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. District politicians then loosened the law but still have so many restrictions that there are no gun shops in the city and just 800 people have received permits. Nevertheless, contrary to the mayor's prediction, robbery and other violent crime are down.

Because Heller applied only to Washington, that case was not the big one. "McDonald v. Chicago" is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that next week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it.

If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America.

Despite my earlier bias, I now understand that striking down those laws will probably save lives.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

In Debate Over Gun-Carry Laws, Critics Are Quick to Shoot Down the Facts

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, May 2010).Published June 24, 2010 FOXNews.com


People walking the streets armed with guns must be dangerous, right? A newly revised study by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center found that even those individuals who have legally obtained permits to carry concealed handguns are extremely dangerous. With millions of Americans already having been issued such permits from the various states, this is an important issue.

The gun control organizations have frequently made these claims in the press, and Dennis Henigan, the vice president of the Brady Campaign, will likely make these claims again when he and I appear on John Stossel’s FoxBusiness show today. But the gun control advocates inaccurately describe many shooting cases, choosing to ignore that the majority of incidents involve people properly defending themselves.

Over the past three years, the number of active permit holders in the United States has gone from about 5 million to more than 6.2 million today. The numbers issued by the state regulatory agencies show time after time that these permit holders abide by the law.

Take Florida, which currently has the most concealed handgun permit holders in the country and is one of the two most populous states with right-to-carry laws. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and May 31 this year, permits had been issued to 1.8 million people. On average, the permits had been held for quite a long time, well over 10 years. For all those individuals across the more than 22 years of legal carry, there were only 167 cases where the permit was revoked for a firearms related violation, or about 0.01 percent of permit holders. While the state doesn't provide a precise breakdown of the reason for those revocations, the vast majority were apparently for people who accidentally carried their concealed handgun into a gun-free zone, such as an airport or school.

Throughout the past 29 months, beginning January 2008, only three additional permit holders have had their permit revoked for a firearms-related violation. With more than 729,000 active permit holders, that is an annual revocation rate of 0.00017 percent.

In sharp contrast, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center portray Florida as Ground Zero for problems with concealed handgun permit holders. They boldly assert that 17 Florida permit holders have "killed" people with their guns over the past three years and that this one state by itself accounts for 17 of the 96 "killer" permit holders nationwide. The other 79 cases are scattered across 26 other states, with no other state accounting for more than 10 cases. Florida is also said to account for 2 of the 7 cases where permit holders are said to have killed law enforcement officers.

The Associated Press articles by Erik Schelzig and by Jim Abrams have given extensive, uncritical coverage to these claims. Members of the gun control organizations have made these claims unchallenged on such places as Fox News and on the Huffington Post (e.g., here and here).

So what is the evidence? The gun control groups don't actually point to actual court cases. They look at news stories and selectively report what is reported in those stories. For Florida, there are eleven "pending cases." The gun control groups assume that anyone involved in a shooting will be convicted. Indeed, in 7 of the 11 cases no one was even charged with a crime. Three cases involved suicides, and three had convictions for some type of offense. (See this link for a detailed presentation of sources.)

But there is something that the gun control advocates conveniently omit: When a permit holder uses a gun defensively and kills an attacker in a public place, the police often arrest them. Typically, he will later be released, but the police must first investigate what happened. The police can’t just take the shooter's word for it that they used the gun defensively.

Take the four pending cases where charges were filed, two of which involved the "killing" of law enforcement.

-- Humberto Delgado, Jr. was charged with the death of a police officer. Delgado obviously engaged in a horrible crime, but there is one major problem with the stories as presented by the gun control groups. He also was charged with carrying a concealed firearm. If he had a concealed handgun permit, he obviously couldn't have been charged with this crime. Delgado was just your typical criminal, who didn't have a permit, who killed a police officer.

-- James Wonder was charged with the death of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection Agent Donald Pettit. Pettit is said to have engaged in road rage against Wonder and then followed Wonder's car into a Post Office parking lot solely to continue harassing Wonder. Pettit had over shot the parking lot and had to circle back to go into it. He had no intention to do business with either the Post Office or any other nearby business. Pettit was clearly the aggressor in the situation. The Sun-Sentinel newspaper wrote on August 29, 2008: "local lawyers said [Wonder] may be able to make a strong claim under Florida law that he was within his rights to shoot Pettit." One measure of the severity of the case is that Wonder was released on a very minimal bond of $10,000. Neither the Brady Campaign nor the Violence Policy Center noted these points in their discussion of the case.

-- Gabriel Mobley shot two people outside a bar, and the gun control groups’ discussions fail to mention the defensive nature of Mobley's actions. A friend of Mobley's had an argument with two other men in a bar. Mr. Mobley separated the men, but the two waited outside and Mobley's lawyer, Richard Della Ferra, told me that they pounced on Mobley and his friend as soon as they left the bar. Witnesses saw one of the two attackers throw a punch that shattered the friend's eye socket. Mobley says that he shot when he thought one of the two men was reaching for a weapon, and police found the DNA of one of the men on a steak knife at the scene.

-- On January 7, 2008, Adam Hill was accused of accidentally firing his gun, the bullet fatally striking a friend while the friend had visited Hill to use his washing machine. Since the case has yet to go to trial, the law office that is representing Hill was unwilling to discuss the case, but they did say that the news articles did not accurately represent what had happened in the case. The law office representing Hill in his legal case emphasized to me in a telephone discussion that news articles on these cases can be quite misleading because defense lawyers warn their clients not to talk to others about their case, including the press.

Two of the three convictions in Florida are quite different than what gun control groups represent. One involved a boyfriend who accidentally shot his girlfriend when he was showing her how to use a gun in her home. There was no evidence of arguing or any disagreement. In another case, the issue was whether the permit holder had done enough to avoid the confrontation. A convicted felon confronted the permit holder. According to newspaper accounts, even the prosecutor acknowledged: “Kallenbach was in some way defending himself during an escalating altercation between the men caught on the security video” and that "People can look at that tape and interpret it two or three different ways.”

While this discussion focuses on Florida, the just released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime provides a detailed analysis for all states from 1990 to July 1, 2008. In state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Arizona, there were 99,370 active permits as of December 1, 2007. During 2007, 33 permits were revoked for any reason -- a 0.03 percent rate. In Texas, there were 288,909 active permit holders. Of these, 160 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.05 percent. That is about one-seventh the conviction rate in the general adult population, and the convictions among permit holders are for much less serious offenses.

I went to some other cases from the gun control groups after July 1, 2008. In two of the other five killings involving law-enforcement, it also appears as if the person who fired a gun didn't have a concealed handgun permit. In one case, in Pennsylvania, Christina Korbe fired a shot killing a police officer when police raided her home. The police were serving an arrest warrant on her husband, and she didn't know it was the police who were breaking into her home, and she was concerned about the safety of her two children, ages 4 and 10.

The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center evaluate the benefits of concealed handgun laws based solely on the claimed costs -- they don't compare the cases where defensive uses occurred to the bad things that happen, but only count what they claim are the bad cases. They ignore lots of amazing defensive gun use cases. But even more bizarrely, they count legitimate self-defense cases as bad events even when no charges are filed or the permit holder is later exonerated.






Concealed carry gains momentum in much of Illinois

Steve King, who operates the Belleville Indoor Shooting Range, says law abiding residents of East St. Louis and throughout Illinois should be able to legally carry concealed handguns to defend their lives. "Much of the crime in our area is in East St. Louis," said King, "This is not meant to be derogatory toward East St. Louis. There are many law abiding people there who have their backs against the wall who must risk breaking the law to protect themselves. They should be allowed to protect themselves." And some top metro east lawmen agree. They urge that a law be adopted in Illinois to make it legal for qualified persons to pack a handgun. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states to entirely ban concealed firearms.


Read About It: The Belleville News Democrat (Ill.)

Posted: 6/28/2010 9:30:05 AM

Monday, June 14, 2010

OATH KEEPERS


OATH KEEPERS

GUARDIANS OF THE REPUBLIC, HONOR YOUR OATH. JOIN US.

 
 
Orders We Will Not Obey


“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army”
-- Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

Such a time is near at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army -- and this Marine Corps, This Air Force, This Navy and the National Guard and police units of these sovereign states.

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”

Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.

Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey

Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.


In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.

We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.

The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.

The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.

Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.

Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted.

Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.

Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example.


Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.”NOT on Our Watch!”

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.

Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.

We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people’s natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord.

Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone.

Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”


Patrick Henry: “Give me Liberty, or Give me DEATH!”

Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.

Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Oath Keepers

The above list is not exhaustive but we do consider them to be clear tripwires – they form our “line in the sand,” and if we receive such orders, we will not obey them. Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh. If you the people decide that you have no recourse, and such a revolution comes, at that time, not only will we NOT fire upon our fellow Americans who righteously resist such egregious violations of their God given rights, we will join them in fighting against those who dare attempt to enslave them.

NOTE:  please also read our "Principles of Our Republic We Are Sworn to Defend"


More About Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is a non partisan association of currently serving military, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and not to any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical. We don’t care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bi-partisan. We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law. We won’t “just follow orders.” Our motto: “Not on Our Watch!” or to put it even more succinctly, in the words of 101st Airborne Commander General Anthony McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge, “NUTS!”

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers.

We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops.

Help us win it.

http://www.oathkeepers.org/

If the link does not work,, copy and past this into your browser:
http://www.oathkeepers.org/


Board of Directors


Sgt. Dave Freeman (RET), Las Vegas Metro, and Army veteran. National Peace Officer Liaison.

Capt. Chauncey Normandin (RET), Lowell (MA) PD, and Army veteran. Florida State Director.

Capt. Gregory Gooch (Ret), Merchant Marine, and Viet Nam Era Navy veteran. Texas State Director.

Chief Celia S. Hyde (RET), Bolton (MA) PD. Member, International Association of Chiefs of Police. Oath Keepers Massachusetts State Director.

Sgt. Rand Cardwell. U.S.M.C. veteran (Desert Storm). Tennessee State Director.

Franklin Shook. U.S.M.C. veteran (Vietnam). Montana State Director.

Robert A. Gomez, MSgt, USAF (RET). Oklahoma State Director.

David T. Helms, U.S. Army (Vet), AR Chapter President

Maj. Rex H. McTyeire (Ret), U.S. Army Special Forces, SC Chapter President

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

ANTI GUN CONTROL FAX- COPY AND SEND TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES!!

STOP GUN CONTROL!


I Oppose Any Regulation Of Firearms!

To: My elected officials,

WE THE PEOPLE own this nation DEMAND you stop giving away our freedom! I am asking you to STOP any Bill which regulates guns! Several gun control bills were introduced at the beginning of the Congressional session.

Stop all gun Bills NOW! Particularly ANY UN Treaties!

All gun control Bills are poison to the American People and to the Second Amendment.

WASHINGTON DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!

WE THE PEOPLE feel vulnerable. For the first time in American history we are being punished by unfair Government practices in the name of firearm management!

STOP MEDDLING IN OUR LIVES!

There are many proposed Bills you will consider in the near future, please remember “We The People” are watching, and rewarding with our votes those who protect the citizens of the United States of America.

Those who betray “We the People” by voting for any Gun Control Bills will be punished by our votes in upcoming elections. Some on Capitol Hill are a pen-stroke away from destroying our beloved nation's right to bear arms.

WE THE PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING YOU TO STOP ANY LEGISLATION WHICH CONTAINS ANY LICENSING, REGULATION OF FIREARMS OR IN ANY WAY INTERFERES WITH AMERICA'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. WE ARE WATCHING WHAT YOU ARE DOING IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE!

Fat cats and career lobbyists will try to entice you with hollow promises. They will try to convince you limiting gun ownership is good for our future. Don’t believe the global elite, their agenda will destroy our nation.

STOP ALL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION, NOW!


NO DATABASE OF GUN OWNERSHIP OR GUN OWNER MEDICAL RECORDS



Sincerely,



YOUR NAME

YOUR ADDRESS

CITY, STATE ZIP CODE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Obama’s New World Order


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23721

Obama’s New World Order


May 31, 2010

By Henry Lamb Saturday, May 29, 2010


It should come as no surprise. During the campaign, he told us he was a “citizen of the world.” Last week, he told the cadets at West Point, and the rest of the world, just what his vision of a new world order is.


Obama wants a new international order that can “resolve the challenges of our times.” That’s what Woodrow Wilson wanted when he and his cronies created the League of Nations. That’s what Franklin Roosevelt wanted when he and his cronies created the United Nations. Fortunately, conservative Senators prevented the United States from surrendering its sovereignty to Wilson’s vision of a New World Order. Roosevelt steamrolled what few conservatives there were in 1945, and the United Nations was created to “resolve the challenges” of his time.

One of the fundamental flaws in the vision of these three globalists – and the New World Order crowd – is the idea that the United States must submit its sovereignty to an ultimate power greater than our own.

Absolutely not, and never!

Veto power for the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council, and to prohibit the U.N. having the authority to levy taxes

In 1945, there was enough conservative influence to retain veto power for the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council, and to prohibit the U.N. having the authority to levy taxes. Both of these provisions have been targeted by the New World Order crowd ever since. The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance recommends that the veto be removed from all five permanent members, and that the U.N. be given extensive taxing powers.


These two barriers, and the absence of authority to raise its own army, are what prevent the current United Nations from becoming the unchallenged government of the world.

If Obama’s “new international order” is to have the authority and resources it needs to “resolve the challenges of our time,” then it will have to have taxing authority to fund the army that will be required to enforce its mandates, which can be enacted at will without fear of veto from the U.S. or the other permanent members.


The United States must never be subservient to any governmental power on earth, other than the government elected by the citizens of the United States. The United States must never depend upon any other government on earth for its defense, or its welfare. The United States must be responsible for “resolving the challenges of our time.”

The United States should seek and welcome cooperation from all nations in all efforts to resolve challenges of mutual concern, but never in a structure where decisions that may control the behavior of U.S. citizens are made by people who are not elected by U.S. citizens. The United States could find itself in just this situation, should the new global financial regulatory scheme now under development become a reality.

The United States has shown that free people who are allowed to invest time, energy, resources, and ideas into a free market can lift the world to unimagined heights of prosperity and well being. This is the example that the United States should offer the world.


Those nations who wish to follow this example and benefit from its rewards will be excellent trading partners, worthy of support, assistance and cultivation. Those who curse capitalism and seek socialism should be free to follow their own course – so long as their course respects our right to ignore them.

Al Sharpton inadvertently revealed another fundamental flaw in the philosophy of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama New World Order Crowd. He said Martin Luther King’s dream was not getting one black family into the white house; his dream was to “…make everything equal in everybody’s house.”

The United Nations reflects this dream in its Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11(1)) which claims that all people have a right to “…an adequate standard of living…adequate food, clothing, and housing”

Think about it: a government that can declare these rights must have the authority and resources to grant these rights. Neither the United States government, nor the United Nations has any resources that have not first been taken from some of the people. It is the direct, expressed objective of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama One World Government crowd to take resources away from the people who have earned them in order to redistribute the resources to those who have not earned them. Only in this way can government “…make everything equal in everybody’s house.”

Voters whose net worth will be improved by wealth redistribution far outnumber voters whose wealth will be taken. The Obama-led Democratic majority in Washington has the votes necessary to take the wealth from those who have earned it in order to “…make everything equal in everybody’s house” and they are doing it as rapidly as possible.

Obama’s “New International Order” goes beyond the United States
Obama’s “New International Order” goes beyond the United States, and seeks to take the wealth of the United States and redistribute it to the rest of the world. He seems perfectly willing to make everything equal in every nation – until your wealth is gone.

The United States should show the rest of the world how to earn prosperity through free-market capitalism, and thereby help the other nations of the world elevate their wealth to equal ours. Obama and his crowd choose instead, to equalize the wealth of nations by draining America’s wealth, and reducing Americans’ wealth to the lowest possible common denominator.

The Wilson-Roosevelt , and now Obama’s vision of a New World Order must be rejected, along with all those politicians who share it.