Blogger, for some reason, is changing things posted on my pages to Spanish. What's up with this? If it is going to screw up, at least put it in French. My French is much better than my Spanish.
UPDATE: It's Fixed! Muchas gracias to the Blogger techs.
From GOA:
URGENT MICHIGAN ALERT
-- Contact Rep. Dingell and urge him to drop his support of the Schumer-McCarthy bill!
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
Monday, April 30, 2007
Last week, GOA alerted you twice to the Brady Law expansion bill -- legislation that will continue the assault on your Second Amendment rights.
This bill (HR 297) is gun control, pure and simple, and it is being pushed by the most rabid anti-gun congressmen in Washington. Current and past sponsors include anti-gun Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and Dick Durbin (D-IL). And on the House side, there's the notorious Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) who are in full support of this gun control measure.
But what is confusing a lot of pro-gun Congressmen on the Hill is the fact that a former NRA Board Director (Rep. John Dingell of Michigan) and a current NRA board member (Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho) are both on record in support of this legislation.
No wonder so many pro-gun congressmen on the Hill are confused.
So what can we do? Or more importantly, what can YOU do?
Well, your living in Michigan gives you a very powerful voice in this fight. As mentioned above, a congressman from your state -- John Dingell -- has already cosponsored this bill. It's not too late to ask him to reconsider his support. After all, he opposed the original Brady bill in 1993. So why, in heaven's name, would he support an expansion of the law in 2007?
The Washington Post reported on April 20 that Rep. Dingell has become the point man for pushing HR 297. As such, he should have to explain to every Michigan resident why he thinks it was necessary for him to become a mouthpiece for Sarah Brady and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
McCarthy is the Queen of Gun Control in the House of Representatives.
She holds an F- rating with Gun Owners of America. And while she is the chief sponsor of this bill, she's taking a back seat, having admitted to The Washington Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles.
"So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the Post reported. "Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch
(R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A.
Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."
In essence, Dingell has become an "evangelist" of sorts for this gun control bill in the House. And this from a former NRA Director! We dare not let him stab the gun community in the back without us raising a fuss.
And that's why your help is needed.
Getting Representative Dingell to back off of his evangelistic kick
-- and to renounce his support -- would send shockwaves through the Congress and keep pro-gun legislators from getting behind this legislation as well.
So it is imperative that you, and as many other gun owners in the state of Michigan as you can find, contact Rep. Dingell and encourage him to stop doing the dirty work for Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy. Tell him to stop selling out our rights.
You know that more gun control is not the answer to school shootings.
And that is why we have provided you a special letter below to really help make the point that gun control is the problem, not the solution.
ACTION:
1. Please take immediate action and contact Representative John Dingell. You can write him by e-mailing his Legislative Director in Washington, DC at:
joshua.tzuker@mail.house.gov
Or you can contact Representative Dingell by:
Phone: 202-225-4071 -- or use the toll-free switchboard at
877-762-8762
Fax: 202-226-0371
2. Circulate this e-mail far and wide in the state of Michigan. Get EVERY GUN OWNER you can to contact Representative Dingell. Urge him to reconsider his position on this bill and to renounce his previous support of it.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Representative Dingell:
I am very concerned about our Second Amendment rights. And I am extremely disappointed that you are doing Carolyn McCarthy's dirty work in supporting HR 297, as reported by The Washington Post on April 20 in "Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks."
According to the Post, you have been anointed as the evangelist to get pro-gun representatives to support HR 297, even though you voted against the Brady bill in 1993. Why are you trying to expand something you were against in the first place?
One of the nation's leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates." Studies from the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences also found similar results.
So I implore you to NOT support this legislation... to tell Rep.
McCarthy that you want OUT... and that you will instead try to REPEAL the gun control laws that create criminal safe zones, such as the one that exists on the Virginia Tech campus where no one is allowed to carry a gun for self-defense.
Rep. Dingell, do you really think that expanded background checks will ultimately stop evil-minded people from getting a gun and prevent school shootings? In considering your answer, don't forget Canada, Germany and Scotland. Even though these countries have imposed massive amounts of gun control, they have all been afflicted with school shootings in the past ten years.
And are you aware that current gun control laws are denying law-abiding Americans their Second Amendment rights -- sometimes erroneously, but other times by intent? Before the Virginia Tech massacre occurred on April 16, there were several students and professors at that university who had publicly expressed their desire to carry guns on campus. But gun control left them disarmed and defenseless.
Now, rather than repealing existing gun control, HR 297 would expand the Brady law -- even though it has already kept countless, law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Americans have been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has crashed, because combat veterans sought treatment to deal with the shakes after returning home and because married couples got into screaming matches with one another -- and are now disarmed for life as a result of the Lautenberg gun ban that you voted for in 1996.
This should teach us that if you give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch, he'll take a mile. (By the way, Gun Owners of America has documented, on its website, numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above, which have resulted in good people being denied their gun rights FOREVER.)
Again, I hope that you will reconsider your support for HR 297 and renounce everything it stands for. Please tell me that you will do so.
Sincerely,
I went to the range yesterday evening, not expecting to do anything but have a little fun shooting a few rounds.
I ran into two schmucks instead.
Schmuck #1 was some big guy trying to impress his non-shooting girlfriend with his manliness. He was popping of his .44 mag, then demanding she give it a try. No, I am not kidding. I later found out she had never been to a range before, never even fired a gun before.
Finally, he pulled out his .45 and popped off several rounds. "Here, baby, your turn" he called out to her. She was so scared she actually started crying. This insensitive jerk really ticked me off. I called him over, and while we were alone, I asked if he would mind if I offered to let his girlfriend fire my .22. He thought that might work, even if "it wasn't a real gun," which ticked me off even more. "It is real enough for me. I sure wouldn't want to take a round."
I always take the .22 mag to the range, no matter what other gun I may practice with that day, because I run into people who have never fired a gun. It is light, not "scary" looking, and it doesn't make much noise. No recoil issues. It is a great beginner gun (and a lot of fun for those more advanced). Plus ammo is cheap.
Long story short, she liked the .22. She enjoyed shooting it enough that she pestered the boyfriend to go rent her one so she could keep shooting.
Schmuck #2 was an uncle taking his nephew out to shoot. This man chose to be a drill sergeant and take all the fun out of shooting. After each shot he offered a loud (and usually not nice) critique.
We are acquaintances, so he came up to me during a break in the action and complained about his nephew's "crappy" shooting.
I asked him why he was making this such a negative experience for his nephew? As long as the kid followed safety rules, who cares if his form wasn't completely perfect? Who cares if there were some flaws? If the kid loves to shoot, that's all that matters at this point. Make it safe, fun, and stop being mean. And move that target up from 30 feet to 10 feet so he can hit the target. He's not a Marine, he is a kid.
Schmucks like these two give gun owners a black eye. Guns are dangerous, so we should never stop emphasizing safety to beginners or first-time shooters (heck, my experience shows they understand they don't know anything about guns, so they listen very carefully to safety instructions - unlike some 'advanced' shooters who 'know everything').
But shooting should be fun for people. If they aren't, or if we are rude, we simply turn people off.
We may fight much of the war to preserve 2nd Amendment rights in courtrooms and in legislative sessions. But we can win so many hearts, and open up so many minds to the importance of the 2A through safe, fun times at the range. Conversely, we can tick people off and shut their minds for them permanently if we behave like a schmuck.
From GOA: more warnings about H297 and workings on the Senate end of things.
Two giant points from their urgent alert:
McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS
HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."
Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.
In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the Bush administration on terrorists.
And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!
Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 -- even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated information relating to the battle we are fighting.
House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen. Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as killer amendments.
Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak for you! That's why it's so important that you once again tell your congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.
From the Detroit Free Press, in an article about a county in Northern Michigan (a beautiful place, by the way):
Some folks say former Ogemaw County Prosecutor Frederick MacKinnon and his buddies were gun nuts -- a compliment of sorts in this tiny community in Michigan's north woods.
Others suspect the men may have been stockpiling machine guns, silencers and ammunition for a right-wing paramilitary group.
Federal officials say MacKinnon, along with former Chief Assistant Prosecutor Gary Theunick and ex-Rose City Police Chief Maxwell Garnett obtained the weapons illegally and failed to pay taxes on them. The men say they bought the equipment to protect residents.
[...]
he men were indicted in January 2005 on charges of illegally possessing seven machine guns and nine silencers from 1999 to 2004; falsifying firearms applications to make it look like the weapons belonged to the prosecutor's office and police department; and evading federal firearms taxes. The most serious charges -- illegal possession of the guns and falsifying the applications -- carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
The men -- who bought the automatic weapons and silencers with their own money from licensed firearms dealers and kept them in their homes -- have denied any wrongdoing. They said they bought the equipment with the blessing of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), whose agents are expected to dispute that at the trial. A conviction would bar the men from owning firearms.
[...]
Ogemaw County is one of the poorest counties in the state, in part because nearly two-thirds of its residents are retirees living on fixed incomes, local officials said. Rose City, the county's second-largest city, covers 1 square mile and has 721 residents and one stoplight.
[...]
So they had automatic weapons; I don't think most people around town really care," said Richard Dooley, president of the Rose City-Lupton Chamber of Commerce and owner of the local feed and paintball store, who knows Garnett and Theunick.
Ronnie Burns, a retired truck driver from Rose City, said many residents think the feds are railroading the trio: "Once they get started on something like this, they don't like to stop."Dooley and Ken Morse, a retired construction manager, said gun ownership is no big deal in Ogemaw County, where 517 of the county's 17,000 adults have concealed weapons permits -- nearly twice the Michigan average.
Both men, interviewed at the Rose City Café, a local hangout, pulled out CCW permits, which they said they obtained with the help of Garnett, a certified firearms instructor.
I've heard an inaccurate statement presented as fact from several different members of the media. With all due respect to those involved (except Cho), the Virginia Tech shooting was not the largest mass murder in American history. It is not the largest school murder in American history, either.
Those horrifying distinctions belong to a tragedy in 1927 in rural Michigan. The Bath Consolidated School was attacked by a member of the school board. Andrew Kehoe blamed a property tax increase for school building improvements on his farm's foreclosure. He decided to kill kids as retribution, planning his attack over several months and using his elected position to get into the school to carefully plant dynamite charges and other explosive devices around the building for maximum carnage.
Long story short, two teachers, the school superintendent, a farmer, the Postmaster, the perp's wife and the perp died from the violence.
So did 37 kids in the third through sixth grades.
UPDATE: Last year, another nut case planned a similar assault at another Michigan school. The Educated Shoprat has more information on the Bath School tragedy in his post about the near-tragedy prevented by the police in Oxford, Michigan.
I wasn't always a believer in the 2nd Amendment. It took an educational experience to make me understand how precious and valuable this freedom is.
Of course, I never had a problem with people using guns for hunting... and while I know better now, back then I thought the 2A was simply to protect things like hunting. As a hunter, I liked that. I came from a hunting family. One of my grandmother's was a much better shot than anyone else in my family. Many women hunt today, but few did back then.
Of course, handguns weren't something you hunt with, so I didn't have a problem with people who wanted to ban them. Shotguns and rifles were "different" in my mind.
I went to the University of Michigan where the 2A was crapped on almost every day. While it did nothing to deter my support of guns for hunting, I bought into the rest of the blatherskyte.
Then I got a job. I am a scientist by trade. After a while, I got into management. After more time passed, I had to fire someone. This was awful. I felt terrible, but this person was deserving of firing, and basically we had to or else there would be legal problems. But it wasn't something I liked. "Bosses" are pegged with an inaccurate stereotype - contrary to the Hollywood portrayal, I don't know anyone personally who gets any pleasure at all from firing someone, no matter the reason. I fired him, he cussed me out and said he'd "get me" and that was the end of it. So I thought. After all, he was informed to never come back on company property - to do so would be trespassing.
The company, of course, had all the "don't bring weapons to work" legal mumbo jumbo in the employee handbook. It was also posted in the lobby and the employee entrance that weapons were not allowed in the building.
This didn't matter to the gentleman I fired. He came back a week later to get me, entered the lobby and asked for me. The employee behind the counter, a new person who didn't know this gentleman, paged me. Then he excused himself, found me before I got to the counter, and told me this guy was acting strange. In fact, he used these exact words: "He keeps a hand in his coat pocket. It's like this guy has a gun in his pocket and wants to shoot you." He described this man's looks and I knew right away who it was.
Instead of going to the lobby, we went to a phone to call the police - even if he didn't have a gun, he was trespassing. Fortunately for all of us, this guy was content to wait in the lobby and police had time to defuse this situation. If he decided to jump the counter and come looking for me... I shudder to think of what might have happened.
Long story short, this guy was illegally carrying a stolen, fully loaded 9mm while trespassing in a "gun-free" zone.
It would have been very easy, though intellectually dishonest, to jump on the "guns are bad" media circus and "ban all guns" bandwagon. Instead, I analyzed and learned from this situation.
This man knew, and ignored, the company policy on guns at work.
This man knew, and ignored, his previously signed statement (from his employee days) declaring (among other things) that he understood weapons were not allowed on the premises.
This man knew, and ignored, the order to stay away from company property or be arrested for trespassing.
This man knew, and ignored, the posted signs.
This man knew, and ignored, the laws prohibiting stealing.
This man knew, and ignored, the laws on concealed carry.
This man knew, and was ignoring, the laws prohibiting assault with a deadly weapon.
This man knew, and apparently planned to ignore, the laws prohibiting murder.
At least it wasn't about guns, this time...
A few weeks ago, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced the “Employee Free Choice Act,” S. 1041. This bill is identical to the version passed in the Democrat-controlled House. Senator Kennedy has pledged to do all he can to get the bill to a vote quickly.
So what is this bill about anyways? It's about payback to his supporters.
Labor leaders blame their troubles (decades of declining membership - in fact, only 7% of private sector employees are union now) on the process workers use to decide whether or not they want to be represented by unions. These leaders complain that the cards are stacked against them.
The yes-or-no vote for union representation involves employee secret ballot elections, which are overseen by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Currently, unions win more than half of these elections... but that isn't enough for them.
Enter Ted Kennedy and S 1041. Just eliminate the private ballot elections and certify the unions as the bargaining agents for workers once they persuade a majority of eligible employees to sign authorization cards. Unions would have as long as they need to collect signatures. That is, this “card check” process would remain open until they win.
Not bad - unless you are into fair representation.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Gun control = Infringement
I am so sick of hearing cowardly blowhards in the news calling for "reasonable measures" to limit the second amendment. These "reasonable measures" are always complete gun control. I even keep hearing about the dangerous "military .22" that Cho used. Or, one of my favorites, "banning assault rifles like the 9 mm pistol."
I am glad to say that reasonable measures limiting the 2nd Amendment are already in place in each of the 50 states, Washington D.C., and every territory of this great nation. And these reasonable limiting measures do not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
What are they?
Unjustified homicide = felony
Rape = felony
Robbery = felony
Assault = felony
And so on... No one may use a weapon (of any type) to violate someone else's freedom.
These are reasonable measures that do not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. These reasonable measures are ignored by the criminal thug.
Anything infringing upon the 2nd Amendment (i.e. "gun control measures") are clearly unconstitutional and evil. They keep the law-abiding citizen from enjoying their Constitutional right (and responsibility) to self-defense , yet do nothing to cut down on crime.
Lots has been written lately about the NRA teaming up with anti-gun Democrats to put new legislation through.
NRA is freakin' hard to get through to. I honestly doubt NRA members can ever get the leadership on the right track, but rather than throw up my hands in disgust and walk away, I say let's all remember to call in and share our opinions.
To leave an email contact (not that I'll expect them to read it), go here: https://www.nrahq.org/contact.asp
NRA-ILA, by phone, may be reached at (800) 392-8683
I don't know that one loud, united voice screaming "enough" will achieve anything - but I know giving up will lead to more gun control.
The blogosphere has been talking non-stop about Sheryl Crow's great solution to global warming. (By the way, hat tip to The Educated Shoprat where I first read about it.)
Of course, she starts off writing "Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights..." but then goes and explains how she indeed does want to rob a, well, is it a God-given right or simply necessity? Anyways, here is the solution: "... but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required."
I think that is a fantastic solution, but I think I can one-up it. Why don't we simply recycle fallen leaves? My proposal encourages recycling and organic fertilizing. Those eco-studs who collect enough leaves can use them year-round. The lazy people would simply have to wait until the following autumn to do their business. Not only will we save trees, but we will be one with the trees as we partner with them to utilize their - and our - full potential.
True eco-studs can use only one side of a leaf per visit, doubling the effectiveness of this plan.
I do admit that those who live near evergreens and poison ivy will not benefit from this plan.
As my fellow Michigander, The Educated Shoprat, points out, another fellow Michigander, Ted Nugent, has an incredible commentary at Communist News Network. Please head on over to CNN and read for yourself.
Here's an appetizer:
Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.
Benjamin Franklin said it so well 200+ years ago when signing the Declaration of Independence: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Those words hold true today for every gun owner. The antis, while hating American history, understand it. They understand that they will win if they divide the American Gun Owner.
Who is in our ranks? Hunters, mothers, target-shooters, self-defense advocates, those into "military-type" weapons (aka "scary-looking weapons" a la Clinton "Assault Weapon" Ban)... the list goes on and on.
So what do they do? They divide and conquer.
"Hey, hunters, you don't want those 'gun-nuts' with the scary-looking guns shooting at deer, do you? No one 'needs' an 'assault rifle.' Let's get rid of them. You, of course, have your gun for sporting purposes, so that is different." As if every owner of an AR-15 takes it deer hunting.
"Hey, self-defense advocates - you think shooting small game is wrong? So do we. Let's join together and get rid of different seasons (like what happened to Michigan's dove hunting season). This isn't sporting."
"Hey, target-shooters with your nice Anschutz rifles, you have a great sport. It's too bad there is gun crime. If we ban handguns, there won't be any more crime and you'll be able to practice your sport without any worries."
You aren't into hunting? So what? Stand with the hunter. You aren't into "military-looking" weapons? So what? Stand with your fellow gun owner. You don't like handguns? Suck it up and stand for the 2nd Amendment.
Listen, gun owners, to the words of Ben Franklin - because they are as true now as they were in 1776: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
David Codrea complains about this frequently - an NRA-endorsed politician turning 180 degrees right after election.
Congressman John Dingell, a Democrat from Trenton, Michigan is one such politician. Every year I get the orange card from NRA telling me Congressman Dingell is the next best thing to Ron Paul as a guardian of my 2nd Amendment freedoms... usually earning an "A" or "A+" from NRA-PVF.
Then, of course, I get this email from GOA stating the obvious - the NRA is full of incompetent leaders:
Urge your Representative to OPPOSE HR 297, the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun.
[...]
On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition.
"With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.
Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported.
"Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."
Many people who read this blog are not members of GOA. Here is their warning on HR 297:
Your Gun Rights Could Soon Hang In The Balance
-- VA Tech shootings now spurring the most far-reaching gun control in a decade
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
ACTION: Now that Congress is moving to restrict YOUR rights in response to the VA Tech shootings, please make sure to take the following three actions after you read this alert:
1. Urge your Representative to OPPOSE HR 297, the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun. (Contact information and a draft letter to your Representative are provided below.)
2. Gin up the e-mail alert systems in your state and forward this e-mail to as many gun owners as you can.
3. Please stand with Gun Owners of America -- at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm -- and help us to continue this fight, as right now, we are combating this latest onslaught ALONE in our nation's capital. GOA spokesmen spent all of last week doing radio and TV debates, interviews for newswires, and opinion editorials for newspapers. This week, we begin the battle in Congress to defeat legislation that could block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The biggest gun battle of the year is about to erupt on Capitol Hill.
Fueled by the recent Virginia Tech shootings, an odd coalition is forming to help expand the number of honest people who now won't be able to buy a gun.
The legislation has been introduced by none other than the Queen of Gun Control herself, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). But she has picked up a key ally, as the bill (HR 297) is being pushed by a powerful gun group in Washington, DC.
On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition.
"With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.
Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported.
"Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."
Despite all this bad news, the Post article does go on to explain that there are some potential pitfalls.
First, you will remember that this is the bill you helped kill last year, when an avalanche of postcards was dumped on Congressional desks by thousands upon thousands of GOA activists. That's why the Post says there is one huge obstacle -- the members of Gun Owners of America.
"The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which opposes any restriction on gun purchases," the Post reported.
SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?
Well, the rest of this alert will answer this question. This alert is long, but it is important to read it in its entirety. We need to "arm" ourselves with the facts so that we can keep pro-gun Congressmen from being duped into supporting a bill that, as of now, is being unanimously cosponsored by representatives sporting an "F-"
rating by GOA.
HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.
Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?
Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.
But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?
Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.
Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.
IMPORTANT TALKING POINTS FOR CAPITOL HILL
Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, your Representative needs to understand three things:
1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.
2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).
NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm -- GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]
3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.
Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen.
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.
GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. In our January alert on HR 297 we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.
HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled! The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
----- PRE-WRITTEN LETTER -----
Dear Representative:
I am a Second Amendment supporter who strongly opposes HR 297 -- the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 -- and I strongly agree with Gun Owners of America that this bill should be defeated.
The minor improvements this bill makes to the Brady instant check are insignificant when compared to the outrageous invasions of our privacy it would permit.
Gun Owners of America has posted an analysis of HR 297 at http://www.gunowners.org/110anatb.htm on its website, showing how the bill will target millions of law-abiding gun owners, including thousands of combat veterans who served our country bravely.
Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or in England!
I think we've got to stop treating criminals like medical patients, thus allowing them to slip through the cracks. If we are not going to incarcerate dangerous people, then all the gun laws in the world will never stop them from getting firearms.
Don't be misled into thinking that this is a bill that gun owners endorse. Most gun owners want Brady repealed, not "fixed." The law has done nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, but it has violated the Second Amendment rights of millions of law-abiding Americans.
Sincerely,
Quote of the Week, April 15 - 21
No one yet knows what awaits the Jews in the twenty-first century, but we must make every effort to ensure that it is better than what befell them in the twentieth, the century of the Holocaust.
Former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu
I got this in an email this morning... I don't know who the original credit goes to, but it is beautiful. I wonder if I can get it in a sweater vest?
ABC ended their "unscientific poll" today. Here are the final results:
Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation?
No. Violent shootings are isolated incidents and it's irresponsible to link them to gun control.
69,061
Yes. This shows the violence that can occur when someone has access to handguns.
23,958
I'm not sure. I need more information.
1,783
Total Vote: 94,802
I don't want to cast stones at VT's leadership. I know they did not intentionally do anything that would put the student body in jeopardy.
However, one glaring fact should be obvious to all: You, not someone in a position of any kind of leadership, are responsible for your own safety.
Last year, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker uttered these words after a pro self-defense measure was killed in the state legislature: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
"Feeling safe" is not the same as actual safety - in fact, I'd call it faux safety. I'd venture a guess that most people across the nation generally feel this kind of faux safety. This is just one of the many, many reasons that everyone is so shocked at this tragedy. Aren't schools supposed to be safe places? Yes - but the reality is they are not. There is no safe place. No church, no school, no business...
The police were across campus investigating a double homicide. Again - I am not casting stones. How were they to know that the madman was still on the loose and ready to kill again? But that is the point, isn't it? How could they know?
The fact is, we aren't secure. There is very little to prevent another dummy from going on a murderous rampage anywhere - be it with guns, knives, bombs...
There are evil people in the world. Good-intentioned people often forget this. What sounds reasonable at the time (CCW holders couldn't carry on campus) to the good-intentioned person now looks villainous.
No one cares more about your well-being than you. You are ultimately responsible for your own safety, and I am responsible for my safety.
No matter how many good-intentioned people in positions of leadership try to make us feel safe - they aren't able to do eliminate our risk. They can't. But what they can do is effectively play ostrich with sweet-sounding measures.
I am not advocating breaking any laws (i.e. illegally carrying). I am simply reminding all who read that evil people do exist - and good-intentioned people often don't acknowledge or fully fathom this. As we have seen at Virginia Tech, the road to hell is still paved with good intentions.
As of 10:30 EDT, here are the results:
There are at least 32 confirmed dead in the shooting at Virginia Tech University, making it the worst campus shooting in American history. Law enforcement officials believe the gunman was firing at least one 9mm semi-automatic pistol.
Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation?
No. Violent shootings are isolated incidents and it's irresponsible to link them to gun control.
65,116
Yes. This shows the violence that can occur when someone has access to handguns.
23,075
I'm not sure. I need more information.
1,720
Total Vote: 89,911
A slight digression from the important 2A issues:
It looks like the owner of the worst record in professional sports history - that would be Matt Millen, CEO and President and defacto GM of the worthless Detroit Lions - needs some help.
I'm not into masochism, but you might think I am since I am a Lions fan. Over the last six painful years, the lions (small 'l' intentional) have posted a 24-72 record. Not too good. We've gone through 4 coaches, wasted draft picks... who cares about the details? The good news is this: Matt Millen is reaching out for help. And it is time for all loyal Lions fans to help him. From the Lions website:
With less than two weeks remaining until the 2007 NFL Draft, Detroitlions.com is holding the 2nd Annual Detroitlions.com Fan Mock Draft!
The mock draft will give Detroit Lions fans the opportunity to cast votes and choose first-round selections for their hometown Lions as well as other NFL teams.
To begin the 2007 mock draft, Detroitlions.com is asking fans to cast their vote for what they think the Lions should do with their first-round selection (second overall): choose a player with the No. 2-overall selection or trade the pick to another team.
If fans vote that the Lions should select a player with the No. 2-overall selection, Detroitlions.com will open voting for the mock draft and the Oakland Raiders will be on the clock.
If fans vote that the Lions should trade the No. 2-overall selection, Detroitlions.com will ask fans to vote on which draft position Detroit should trade to.
Voting is currently open. Fans can vote until 9 a.m. ET Wednesday (April 18).
From Israel National News:
As Israel observed Holocaust Day, thousands of miles away, A Rumanian-born Holocaust survivor gave his life in another senseless murder - and apparently in an act of heroism.
Among the 32 people killed by a lone gunman at Virginia Tech Monday is 77-year-old engineering professor, Liviu Librescu, a citizen of Israel. According to eyewitness accounts, Librescu ran to the door of his classroom and blocked it with his body – preventing the gunman from entering but getting shot to death himself as a result.
Alec Calhoun, a 20-year-old student who had been in Librescu's class in room 204, told a reporter that at 9:05 a.m. the heard screams and a loud banging sound from the next-door classroom. When the students realized it was gunfire, he said, some hid behind tables, and others leapt from the classroom's windows. Calhoun himself was among the last to jump. "Before I jumped from the window, I turned around and looked at the professor, who stayed behind, maybe to block the door. He had been killed."
Librescu is survived by his wife of 42 years, Marlena, who was with him in Virginia, and sons Aryeh and Joe who are in Israel. They intend to bury him in Israel.
Asael Arad, an Israeli student who visited the widow after the tragedy, told Army Radio Tuesday that Marlena had been receiving e-mails from students who credited Prof. Librescu with saving their lives. "I lost my best friend," the widow told a reporter for NRG at her home near the Blacksburg campus. "He was a great person, who loved teaching more than anything." Marlena said someone had initially informed her that her husband was injured in the shooting. "I looked for him in the hospitals all day but I didn't find him," she said.
The Librescus are Rumanian Jews who came on aliyah (immigrated to Israel) in 1978 – after then-Prime Minister Begin interceded on their behalf with the Rumanian government, according to Marlena. The couple went on a sabbatical to the United States since 1986 and has been living there ever since.
ABC was blogging about how evil "high capacity clips" were - even though nothing has been released about the clips used, and even though someone shooting with a 2x15 is as dangerous as a 3x10. And even though they meant "magazine" instead of "clip" - typical. Or even though they write:
Web sites now advertise overnight UPS delivery of the clips, which carry up to 40 rounds for both semi-automatic rifles, including 9mm pistols, and handguns.
ABC News posted an online survey in the middle of their VT coverage. No shock here - the headline read
IS SHOOTING GROUNDS FOR GUN CONTROL?
There are at least 29 confirmed dead in the shooting at Virginia Tech University, making it the worst campus shooting in American history. Law enforcement officials believe the gunman was firing at least two 9mm semi-automatic pistols.
Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation?
No. Violent shootings are isolated incidents and it's irresponsible to link them to gun control.
43,481
Yes. This shows the violence that can occur when someone has access to handguns.
17,553
I'm not sure. I need more information.
1,337
Total Vote: 62,371
Nicki over at The Liberty Zone said it best:
I'm sure the Brady Bunch and their tyrannical counterparts all over the world will claim this massacre as an argument for banning more guns. Just remember one thing: Virginia Tech had already done so. It was a gun-free zone. And in this case, gun control claimed lives. Many lives.
I owe a hat tip to Stephen Renico, who left a link to this interesting story in the comments section of a previous post.
Before we get to the article, let me reiterate that I have very close ties to Virginia Tech, and I am grieved at the tragedy. However, I also clearly understand that an evil man, not a gun, was responsible for the massacre. I also understand that a CCW-holder could have stopped this. Angry people will dispute this for many reasons, but when the dust settles and the raw emotion numbs a little, I still believe that is true.
A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
I have very close ties to Virginia Tech, and I am grieved by what happened there hours ago.
There are "ban the guns" cries all over the news and internet - but what was a gun doing there when the entire campus is a "gun-free zone"? A person, not some random gun, chose to violate the gun-free zone, which is state law, and chose to murder people (21 at the time of this writing).
It is evil people, not guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, etc. that murder.
Yesterday was Holocaust Memorial Day in Israel. Hitler, of course, murdered six million Jews simply because he hated Jews.
Disarmed Jews couldn't fight back. However, it is interesting that Hitler wasn't the one who effectively disarmed them... Hitler's predecessor actually instituted the gun control that would ultimately put Hitler into power.
Don't think it can ever happen in the US? Several hundred years of slavery, lynchings of Black people, etc. proves this not only can happen again - but left unchecked, it will. One thing world history has shown us is that humans have an amazing capacity to hate each other.
I am reminded of the words of a German pastor, Martin Niemoller:
When Hitler came for the Jews... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned. — Pastor Martin Niemoller, Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, vol. 114, p. 31636.
Quote of the Week, April 8-14
Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
- Ronald Reagan
This guy should leave Israel and come over to the States... he'd make a great Democratic Congressperson.
In a letter to Prime Minister Olmert, MK Abbas Zakour says releasing all 150 Israeli-Arab terrorists from prison would "open a new page in Israeli-Arab relations."Of course, Olmert might be foolish enough to do this.
The list of incarcerated terrorists whose freedom Hamas demands in return for the release of captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit is under the consideration of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert has expressed his "disappointment" with the inclusion on the list of several arch-terrorists responsible for many Israeli deaths.
Also on the list are some Israeli-Arab terrorist prisoners - and Arab MK Abbas Zakour says there should be more.
"There are today nearly 150 Arab security prisoners [terrorists - ed.], men and women, residents of the State of Israel, who are imprisoned in Israeli jails, in most difficult conditions," Zakour wrote to Olmert.
Terrorist love to kill Jews, especially on Jewish Holy Days. Israel narrowly avoided another Passover (Pesach) massacre.
From Arutz Sheva:
,,,a Hamas terrorist had successfully entered the Greater Tel Aviv area in a car laden with 100 kg. (220 lbs.) of explosives before Passover. Besides the explosives, it contained large amounts of shrapnel material, intended to maximize carnage. For reasons that are not yet known, the attack was not carried out and the terrorist drove the car back to Kalkilye, from where it had come. The car exploded in Kalkilyeh, in... a 'work accident.'
Some reports say the suicide terrorist simply "changed his mind."
The terrorist carries a blue Israeli ID card as a result of his marriage to an Arab-Israeli.
The would-be suicide terrorist was able to drive the car into Tel Aviv with the help of his Israeli ID card, which he received as a result of his marriage (or his father's, according to some versions) to an Arab-Israeli from Taibeh. The ID made it easy for him to drive past IDF roadblocks from Kalkilye – which is under Hamas/Palestinian Authority control – into the nearby Tel Aviv area. His vehicle also carried Israel license plates.
I hate shopping with a passion. Now I am guaranteed to never set foot in Leviathan's den.
All,
While I was driving south on 101 I passed by the Ikea store which has a big electronic sign.
There was one ad that said:
"$1000 REWARD For info on people with guns”
The sign had a silhouette of an AR and the logo for a police dept. The sign advised people to report gun owners at the following number 650 321 1112
Ikea appears to own the sign but they use a company called Smart Sign Media to take care of the ads that run. (800-549-7300)
I called Smart Sign Media and was told by "Cheryl" that the ad was placed by the East Palo Alto Police. They were offering up to $1000.00 reward.
I called the 650-321-1112 number and was routed to a lady in police admin at 650-853-3160. I could not get the lady's name but she told me that the program was designed to get the public to report young men who were seen with guns in the street.
When I asked her what happened with these reports she said that these were only considered “incidents" until an officer checked them out.
When I asked her what she meant by checking them out, she said they would dispatch an officer to the address and see if the person had the “proper paperwork" for the weapon. If not, they would confiscate the gun and hold it pending further investigation. At this point a true report would be filed.
When I asked her to define "proper paperwork”, the process for getting a gun back, etc. she got very evasive and said I had to talk to a sergeant. I was then left on terminal hold. I called back twice with the same result.
I need the following:
A. Include a request to have as many people as possible call 650 853 3160 and ask to speak to the sergeant on duty. Get as much info as you can about the program and the details.
B. Get people to start calling Ikea in East Palo Alto and find out why they are allowing this to go on.
C. Get this information out to as many other 2A groups as possible.
Many thanks,
Mark Towber
President
Golden State 2nd Amendment Council
I don't really know what to make of the following story, because I generally distrust any politician not named "Ron Paul." But I do find the following intriguing:
From the Michigan Chamber of Commerce:
Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford Twp.) is proposing running the current fiscal year, which is scheduled to end Sept. 30, until Sept. 30, 2008 — basically combining the two — as a way to give the state the time to generate the revenues necessary to balance both budgets.
[...]
Unlike the private sector, the public sector operates under a strict time cycle for its budget. That can make some of the long-term decisions government needs to make difficult to accomplish. But if government can be run more like a business, the state of Michigan in the end may come out the beneficiary.
Quote of the week, April 1 - 7
When Hitler came for the Jews... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.
— Pastor Martin Niemoller, Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, vol. 114, p. 31636.
This great article was written by Bob Allen His name is Charles. Her name was Clara. Was. Past tense. The first and last time Charles saw Clara alive, she was being dragged by her hair through the CNN Center in Atlanta. Clara's tormentor ordered Charles out of the way, and instead of standing his ground to defend an obviously distressed woman, he obeyed the thug's order and let them pass. Charles' choice was to go in search of a guard instead of personally coming to the woman's aid, and the tragic result is that Clara is now dead. Going to find "help" turned out to be no help at all. Could Charles have saved Clara? It's possible he could not. Perhaps Charles would have also been a victim. We can never be sure. What we do know is that Charles obeyed a thug – refused to defend the defenseless – and two people are now dead. What would you have done? What would I have done? There was a time when a majority of American men would almost surely have come to Clara's aid. They believed in an ethic that said, "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter." (Proverbs 24:11) It was a day when men, recognizing the reality of evil, carried weapons that enabled them to stand in the gap for those being unjustly tormented and threatened. Virtually any man on the street could come to the aid of a victim like Clara. That was then; this is now. Charles is probably a good, law-abiding citizen of modern America. Therefore he knows all too well he cannot carry a weapon to defend people like Clara without asking permission of the government. Long past are the days of George Tucker, a man wounded twice in America's Revolutionary War, who wrote: The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever … the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." Or again, William Rawle, appointed as a U.S. attorney by President George Washington: "No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction, be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. 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 [state or federal government] should attempt it, [the Second] Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." Most Americans today probably couldn't even imagine living when the laws in Virginia made men subject to prosecution for NOT carrying their weapons with them at all times, even (gasp!) being specifically mandated to bring them to church! Yes, we're a long way from those days, and I wonder if perhaps we've so lost the ability to govern ourselves that we deserve to be helpless in the face of evil. Yet, as soon as I write that, I come back to a simple truth: Clara didn't deserve to die. She had a perfect right to expect someone – anyone – with a sense of decency and courage to come to her aid in time of need. Charles did not. No one else did. We don't have to guess what George Tucker, William Rawle and the other Founding Fathers would say about our "gun control" laws that restrain only the law-abiding. All we have to do is read their writings. And perhaps ponder this horrible truth: Clara is dead.
How gun control trades life for death
Time Magazine featured an article with this headline in the latest issue: A Citizens' Army in New Orleans. Despite the cool headline, it wasn't much of an article, although New Orleans Police offered stellar advice like this:
...in a holdup, a gun-waving victim is more likely to end up shot than one who simply hands over money... Then there's the possibility that a gun will be stolen and used in other crimes.So, even though the National Guard and State Police have been patrolling New Orleans, and even though they have the highest per capita murder rate in the nation (53 murdered since the beginning of the year), the best advice is - don't arm yourself?
So much for Universities as places of safe dialogue. Here in Detroit, Wayne State University had a wonderful little anti-Israel/pro-terrorist demonstration with people holding up intellectually stimulating signs like this:
Guns are not the root of all evil. Consider the following stories found in this morning's newspaper:
Bad Mothers
Two Macomb County men are facing criminal sexual conduct charges after they repeatedly had sex with a 14-year-old girl — the same teen who a year earlier had posed as an 18-year-old on a popular teen networking Web site.Stabbed Basketball Player
The teen’s mother has been charged with second-degree child abuse and contributing to the delinquency of a minor after police discovered she knew her daughter was having sex in the Utica apartment. The teen had had two miscarriages and is pregnant again.
A Rice University basketball player was stabbed to death early Thursday outside a bar in College Station.Intentional Destruction
Jonathan Bailey and his twin brother, Janson, were involved in a fight inside the bar, located about 100 miles northwest of Houston, College Station police said. Those involved in the fight were asked to leave the bar but the altercation continued outside.
Police found the Bailey brothers at about 1:45 a.m. Thursday. They had been stabbed multiple times. The brothers had turned 22 on Wednesday.
Everything including the kitchen sink was stripped from a rental home after an Internet classified ad invited people to take whatever they wanted for free.
But the landlord says the ad, posted last weekend on the craigslist Web site, was fake.
“In the ad, it said come and take what you want. Everything is free,” Laurie Raye told Seattle’s KING-TV.
Raye had cleaned out the rental after evicting a tenant. After the ad appeared, the property was stripped of the sink, light fixtures and the hot water heater. Even the front door and a vinyl window were pilfered, Raye said.
Why isn't the President organizing militias to combat terrorism and the threats associated with weak borders? Why isn't Congress helping him? They both have a responsibility to do so.
Article 2, Section 2:And, duties of Congress include:The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...
Article I, Section 8To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
We often complain about unconstitutional laws obstructing the "individual rights" portion of the 2nd Amendment. Yet, there is also a militia responsibility tucked in there.
And reading the Constitution, it seems clear that the President and Congress must allow militias to defend the country in times of great peril. Why don't they let the people help now? It wouldn't cost much to fund, millions of gun owners would participate, and there would be no need for a police or surveillance state. Aren't the President and members of Congress once again behaving in an unconstitutional way?
By the way, I don't want to hear anything like "the National Guard is our modern militia." If that is true, why are National Guardsmen and women serving overseas? The militia serves at home. Unlike a state militia, the National Guard is federally funded, has bases on federal land, and uses federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms.
I'd also refer people espousing the National Guard argument to read 10 USC 311 which defines the militia as more than the National Guard. Among other things, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..."
Meanwhile, 32 USC 109(c) states:"...a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces."
Finally, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and approved 1780's, while the National Guard wasn't created until 1916, 130 or so years later. It was put under permanent Federal control in 1933.
Prime Minister, uh, Speaker Pelosi at the historic Ommayad Mosque. PM Pelosi, don't ever bitch about things being unfair for women in America if you prance around wearing a scarf to placate men of a different government, or for that matter, men of any religion. Don't run around spouting off about how wonderful it is that a woman is now Speaker of the House when you sell women out by behaving like a subservient little female.
Photo © AP
I thought Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House. I didn't realize she was Prime Minister.
According the the US Constitution, Pelosi (or a Representative/Senator from either party) may not use their status as member of Congress to mess around with foreign policy. Perhaps one could make an argument Pelosi could travel to Syria as a private citizen. Of course, she is prancing around as the alternative to Bush instead of Nancy the private citizen - and this is something she is not authorized to do. According to the Constitution, she only has legislative authority, and serves as a domestic check to the President's foreign policies. And, might I add, she shares this power with other members of Congress - it isn't something specially reserved for the Speaker of the House.
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Article II, Section 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years...
Article II, Section 2
he President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
This comes from The Weedpatch Gazette:
While watching the news last night and the Jim Webb/Phillip Thompson issue was being discussed, I was surprised to hear an attractive young woman, an advocate of right to carry and owns guns herself say “I won’t be with a man that can’t kill another man.” I was so astounded by her frank and open statement, more than just a breath of fresh air but a near gale that it made me wish more women would be allowed to speak so openly. However, that is wishful thinking since the MSM doesn’t get into the stories I read each month in the NRA’s publication “American Rifleman” unless it is to the advantage of those that want to disarm all law-abiding citizens of America.
The young woman’s statement is so astoundingly and refreshingly honest it should give every American pause to think about the increasing violence especially directed at attractive young women in America. They know they are the prey and men are the predators. I know the need women have for men to come to their defense, especially the right to carry for women, a point often made by Sandra S. Froman, President of the NRA. But when an attractive young woman goes out with a man, knowing she is the target of sexual predators, she deserves to know the man she is with can protect her, that if need be he can kill in her defense. And if she finds herself alone, she needs to be prepared to kill in her defense; how many a young woman would be alive today had they been able to do so when attacked by sexual predators.
In the face of escalating violence in America, I’ve also written about the need for the elderly to be armed. Just today a friend called and told me one of his elderly friends, a woman, had called him telling of her concern now that her husband is disabled, that for the first time in her life she was considering buying a gun. He asked me about this and I told him she should be able to get professional advice from any reputable gun store owner.
I’ve dealt with firearms all my life; I’m a certified gunsmith and was handloading since I was twelve years old beginning with a Lyman tong tool. I know the many risks associated with guns and explosives, so much so that I know those unfamiliar with guns need expert training in the use of them. The NRA along with reputable gun stores offers such training.
But “The Armed Citizen” is the bane of most politicians as our Founding Fathers realized, and the Second Amendment was specifically designed for the purpose of the last line of defense against the tyranny of government. More than that, the Second Amendment should be not only the right but the recourse of every law-abiding American citizen in self-defense.
As with judges and politicians that defend child molesters, pedophiles, and rapists it is easy to surmise they must be perverts themselves; and the same thing applies to those that would disarm Americans. The perversion of those that would deny us our Second Amendment right to own guns, that attack “right to carry” suffer the perversion of wanting all power to be held in the hands of a favored few, generally the wealthy, politicians, and judges.
I was delighted at some of the responses I received by email and other to my article “Just a wink and all hell breaks loose!” I expressed my opinion that without Val Kilmer the film would have been nothing but another high budget Hollywood Western. Kilmer in the role of Doc Holliday really made the movie, and I think should have received an Oscar for his performance. It was one of those rare portrayals of raw human honesty, especially where he declares his “hypocrisy” only went so far. I believe we could excuse some politicians if they were so remarkably honest.
Granted “Death Hunt” was a better film, and few would fault Lee Marvin or Charles Bronson. The film was cinematically beautiful, and the performances overall better than “Tombstone” excepting that of Val Kilmer. But most films of this genre find us applauding justice finally triumphing over evil. And that is what We the People hunger and thirst for: Justice triumphing over evil.
Some of you may recall when the 1974 film “Death Wish” opened in theaters some audiences were reported to have stood up and applauded at the scene where Bronson blows away the subway punks. “The film was a huge commercial success and inspired four sequels. Widely denounced by critics for advocating unsanctioned violence against criminals, Death Wish became a metaphor for a rising public tide of anger against unchecked violent crime.”
I well recall those critics at the time, but what these bleeding hearts refused to acknowledge was the fact most Americans want the punks “blown away.” What is this utter nonsense of “unsanctioned violence against criminals” but just another politically correct way of saying law-abiding citizens must continue to be at the mercy of criminals without recourse to justice?
Yes, we are acutely aware of the rule of law being “How much justice can you afford?” But when the President and his U. S. Attorney General among so many others act as though they alone stand for “justice” We the People have every right to begin questioning whether we can any longer afford their interpretation of “justice.” In the meantime I will keep my Beretta handy and my powder dry, I will continue to advocate for “The Armed Citizen,” and encourage women to follow the advice of that young woman “I won’t be with a man that can’t kill another man.”
Folks, our politicians, judges, and gangs don’t own America, and faced with the kind of brutality law-abiding citizens are subjected to every day I advise all of you to have a gun, get proper training in its use, and be prepared to use it. “Death Wish became a metaphor for a rising public tide of anger against unchecked violent crime.” Things have only worsened since 1974, and with no end in sight for gangs terrorizing at will, unchecked violent crime increasingly unchecked, armed citizens would seem to be the only way Americans can protect themselves. We certainly cannot depend on our “leadership” to do it, a leadership that won’t even secure our borders let alone our homes or persons.
Michigan residents - Good news - at least if you are going to the Twin Cities.
Latest News from the Office of Minnesota Governor Tim PawlentyOf course, if you are driving, you'll have to go through Illinois and Wisconsin, where your CPL has no reciprocity.
"The Department of Public Safety has completed their annual review of other state laws and has determined that an additional eleven states qualify for permit recognition in Minnesota because their laws regarding permit issuance are substantially similar to Minnesota’s laws.
The additional states whose laws are substantially similar to Minnesota’s are Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. Those states are in addition to the four states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Utah and Wyoming) Minnesota currently recognizes, which brings the total number of recognized states to 15."
Terrorists are again threatening our children and their schools. Don't they know that schools are supposed to be gun-free zones? Maybe, like all thugs, they don't care.
Authorities fear the school massacre that shook Russia a few years ago may be a dress rehearsal for what al-Qaida plans to do in America – only on a grander scale, launching multiple school attacks simultaneously across the country.
In 2004, Chechen terrorists associated with al-Qaida seized a school building in Beslan, Russia, and slaughtered 338, including 172 children.
Three years later, schools and local police in this country are still unprepared to deal with such an assault, experts warn. Most don't have response plans for handling a single active shooter, let alone a cell of trained terrorists launching a large-scale attack.
[...]
The 9/11 mastermind now in custody at Gitmo recently suggested al-Qaida may be targeting school children. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said in his confession before a military tribunal that while he may not like killing kids, they're fair game in jihad. He claims U.S. forces bombed and killed the children of bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and arrested and "abused" his own children.
[...]
Experts also worry about terrorists operating independently of al-Qaida. "There are many lone wolves and self-starters out there who could attack at any time," Grossman warned.
Muslim gunman Sulejman Talovic was loaded for bear in February when he opened fire on shoppers in a Salt Lake City mall. He was armed with a shotgun, a .38 pistol and a backpack full of ammunition. He killed five and would have kept killing if an alert off-duty police officer hadn't returned fire and helped stop him.
If the 18-year-old Bosnian immigrant had targeted his old high school in a similar rampage, the number of body bags would have been horrific, experts say. Such a scenario is local law enforcement's worst nightmare, because school resource officers, or SROs, are ill-equipped to handle such assaults.
Homeland security consultants recommend arming all SROs and training them in SWAT tactics to repel such attackers.
"The time may come when that one cop will have to keep several adults at bay, preventing them from prosecuting their assault plan on our kids until support arrives," said John Giduck, president of Archangel Group, an antiterror training service.
A spokeswoman for the president says there appear to be a lot of poor memories on apitol Hill these days.
[...]
Kinsolving asked Perino about the loyalty her boss, President Bush, would have towards her.
"More than half of page two of yesterday's Washington Post, under the headline, 'Defender of the Second Amendment, if Not His Aide,' reports how Sen. Webb's aide Phillip Thompson was held for 28 hours in jail because he inadvertently walked into the Russell Senate Office Building with Sen. Webb's loaded gun and two loaded magazines in his briefcase.
"And my question, you have no doubt in your mind, do you, Dana, that the president would immediately intervene on your behalf, rather than leave you in jail for 28 hours, in the event you inadvertently carried his gun and ammo in a briefcase into the Russell Building?" Kinsolving said.
"I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure I have that much – the president has that much confidence in me. … I'm not going to – I'm not going to comment..." she said.
