Obama: Change For The Sake Of Expediency
Friday, April 11, 2008
When it comes to the Second Amendment, it's somehow appropriate that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is running on a platform of "change." Because when it comes to his rhetoric on the issue of gun rights, "change" is an apt description.
Last month, we reported on Obama's hypocrisy. We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard.
Last week, we reported on Obama's attempt at reassuring pro-gun voters by telling them, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns," then telling the Pittsburgh Tribune "I am not in favor of concealed weapons," and that he favors "…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]…."
Obama is savvy, and he's a quick study. His politically expedient stance on the gun issues has morphed from "a ban on all handguns" to his now frequent use of phrases like "protecting sportsmen."
Lately, in an effort to curry votes from America's gun owners, he's even claiming to believe in the Second Amendment. A recent campaign "fact sheet" touting Obama's support for sportsmen claims that Obama "greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" (note the failure to say "keep" and bear arms). But read further--to the "fine print" at the end of the statement--and you'll see his political safety net…an easily down-played but highly significant "qualifier" that he almost always includes in some form. It reads, "He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation." In other words, "I support your gun rights, so long as that includes "reasonable" restrictions (wink, wink)." Very slick.
The next time you hear Obama talking about "protecting sportsmen's rights," remember that, among other things, he endorses the D.C. gun ban--which outlaws armed self-defense in the home--declaring that the ban doesn't violate the Second Amendment. And that in a "1998 National Political Awareness Test," he pledged to support a "Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." That includes most handguns and many rifles and shotguns.
Obama's alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he's out to destroy it.
(From the NRA)
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Monday, April 14, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Supreme Court and Heller Could Influence Elections
While the presidential primaries continue, and state and local races get into gear, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments March 17th on a case with huge political implications for gun owners: Heller v. The District of Columbia, or the Washington, D.C., gun-ban case.
The case concerns the 1976 District of Columbia law banning people from possessing handguns. Heller attorneys argue that the ban violates the right of D.C. citizens to own and possess firearms under the Second Amendment.
After oral arguments the first day, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, gave an early "win" to the Second Amendment.
"Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller," Gottlieb wrote in an SAF press release. "We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens."
Gottlieb said a ruling is expected sometime in June.
The case concerns the 1976 District of Columbia law banning people from possessing handguns. Heller attorneys argue that the ban violates the right of D.C. citizens to own and possess firearms under the Second Amendment.
After oral arguments the first day, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, gave an early "win" to the Second Amendment.
"Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller," Gottlieb wrote in an SAF press release. "We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens."
Gottlieb said a ruling is expected sometime in June.
Hillary's Gun Control Record
What does Hillary's gun control record look like?
Well, to be frank, It’s not good.
In a recent article, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote that, "As a ‘progressive’ senator, [Clinton] ranks among the handful of the worst ‘F’-rated gun banners who voted to support the kind of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Clinton has also supported legislation to create a national registration for handguns and lent her face and name to the anti-gun Million Mom March.
Yet as a presidential candidate, Clinton claims to support the Second Amendment. She’s called for a vague gun summit, in which "everybody comes together on all sides of this issue." When pressed on the question of gun control, she admitted only to opposing "illegal guns."
Maybe Clinton's record on guns is best summed up by New York Times columnist Gail Collins, who recently wrote, "Clinton used to be very vocal about gun control when she was running for Senate in New York, but now [that she’s a presidential candidate], there's nothing about it on her Web site."
Well, to be frank, It’s not good.
In a recent article, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote that, "As a ‘progressive’ senator, [Clinton] ranks among the handful of the worst ‘F’-rated gun banners who voted to support the kind of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Clinton has also supported legislation to create a national registration for handguns and lent her face and name to the anti-gun Million Mom March.
Yet as a presidential candidate, Clinton claims to support the Second Amendment. She’s called for a vague gun summit, in which "everybody comes together on all sides of this issue." When pressed on the question of gun control, she admitted only to opposing "illegal guns."
Maybe Clinton's record on guns is best summed up by New York Times columnist Gail Collins, who recently wrote, "Clinton used to be very vocal about gun control when she was running for Senate in New York, but now [that she’s a presidential candidate], there's nothing about it on her Web site."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Election Update! Obama Likes Hunters But Dislikes Handguns?
Election Update! Obama Likes Hunters But Dislikes Handguns?
This story is from the Gun Digest the Magazine Web site forums.
While campaigning in Idaho the weekend before Super Tuesday, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd, "There are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state — we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."
Yet according to Jake Tapper, ABC News' senior national correspondent, "In 1996, however, Obama said in a questionnaire that he 'supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns' — a fairly extreme position. However, it should be pointed out that this appears to be yet another example of Obama not being able to get good help. You guessed it — his campaign says this questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer.
This story is from the Gun Digest the Magazine Web site forums.
While campaigning in Idaho the weekend before Super Tuesday, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd, "There are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state — we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."
Yet according to Jake Tapper, ABC News' senior national correspondent, "In 1996, however, Obama said in a questionnaire that he 'supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns' — a fairly extreme position. However, it should be pointed out that this appears to be yet another example of Obama not being able to get good help. You guessed it — his campaign says this questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Gun Control Advocates Introduce 'Microstamping' Bill
(CNSNews.com) - A gun control group is hailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) for introducing legislation that would require gun microstamping in all fifty states.
The National Crime Gun Identification Act, introduced in both the House and Senate on Feb. 7, "will help law enforcement track down armed criminals and solve gun murders," the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said.The National Rifle Association calls such legislation "incremental gun control." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said microstamping will help police trace guns that are used in crimes.
It's "the common sense thing to do," Helmke said in a news release on Monday."Last year, California passed a bill to take advantage of this new microstamping technology. Governor Schwarzenegger signed that legislation into law. I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Congressman Becerra for introducing these bills to put this technology to work nationwide," Helmke said.
California's microstamping law, which is supposed to take effect in 2010, would require all semiautomatic pistols to have "microstamped identifiers" -- tiny internal markings that transfer themselves onto bullet cartridges fired from a gun. In theory, microstamped cartridges found at crime scenes might help police identify the make, model and serial number of the gun used in the crime -- and perhaps trace the criminal who used it as well.At least one gun manufacturer, STI International, stopped selling firearms in California as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the state's microstamping bill into law."We will be suspending all shipments of guns to California effective October 13, 2007.
This includes everyone from civilians to Law Enforcement," STI says on its Web site.Sen. Kennedy said his bill would amend federal law by prohibiting licensed federal firearms dealers from manufacturing, importing, or transferring certain semi-automatic pistols that are not capable of microstamping ammunition. According to Rep. Becerra, "Gun microstamping is a simple and effective technology that promises to save lives and keep violent criminals off the streets. It is inexpensive for gun manufacturers to implement, does not infringe on personal ownership rights, and provides a powerful investigative tool to our law enforcement officers."But the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has outlined the "numerous and varied problems" associated with microstamping.Microstamping has repeatedly failed in tests, the NRA-ILA says. Moreover, the microstamped etchings are easily removed or altered.Beyond the technological questions, the NRA says most gun crimes do not require micro-stamping to be solved; and most criminals who use guns don't get them through legal channels.In fact, the NRA-ILA warns that micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, since criminals would rather steal guns than buy them legally and thus leave a trail in a microstamp database.The NRA-ILA says many guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. And given the fact that there are some 250 million guns in the U.S. already, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped if the law is passed.Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts, the NRA-ILA said.And finally, the NRA-ILA mentioned the costs associated with microstamping that will be passed along to gun buyers.A database to track micro-stamped handguns will be expensive, the group said; and the handgun manufacturing process will have to be redesigned to accommodate microstamping. And then there are the anticipated licensing fees that would have to be paid to the sole-source micro-stamping patent holder.
"Mandating microstamping will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers in California and prices for available guns will skyrocket," the National Shooting Sports Foundation says on its Web site.
The National Crime Gun Identification Act, introduced in both the House and Senate on Feb. 7, "will help law enforcement track down armed criminals and solve gun murders," the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said.The National Rifle Association calls such legislation "incremental gun control." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said microstamping will help police trace guns that are used in crimes.
It's "the common sense thing to do," Helmke said in a news release on Monday."Last year, California passed a bill to take advantage of this new microstamping technology. Governor Schwarzenegger signed that legislation into law. I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Congressman Becerra for introducing these bills to put this technology to work nationwide," Helmke said.
California's microstamping law, which is supposed to take effect in 2010, would require all semiautomatic pistols to have "microstamped identifiers" -- tiny internal markings that transfer themselves onto bullet cartridges fired from a gun. In theory, microstamped cartridges found at crime scenes might help police identify the make, model and serial number of the gun used in the crime -- and perhaps trace the criminal who used it as well.At least one gun manufacturer, STI International, stopped selling firearms in California as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the state's microstamping bill into law."We will be suspending all shipments of guns to California effective October 13, 2007.
This includes everyone from civilians to Law Enforcement," STI says on its Web site.Sen. Kennedy said his bill would amend federal law by prohibiting licensed federal firearms dealers from manufacturing, importing, or transferring certain semi-automatic pistols that are not capable of microstamping ammunition. According to Rep. Becerra, "Gun microstamping is a simple and effective technology that promises to save lives and keep violent criminals off the streets. It is inexpensive for gun manufacturers to implement, does not infringe on personal ownership rights, and provides a powerful investigative tool to our law enforcement officers."But the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has outlined the "numerous and varied problems" associated with microstamping.Microstamping has repeatedly failed in tests, the NRA-ILA says. Moreover, the microstamped etchings are easily removed or altered.Beyond the technological questions, the NRA says most gun crimes do not require micro-stamping to be solved; and most criminals who use guns don't get them through legal channels.In fact, the NRA-ILA warns that micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, since criminals would rather steal guns than buy them legally and thus leave a trail in a microstamp database.The NRA-ILA says many guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. And given the fact that there are some 250 million guns in the U.S. already, only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped if the law is passed.Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts, the NRA-ILA said.And finally, the NRA-ILA mentioned the costs associated with microstamping that will be passed along to gun buyers.A database to track micro-stamped handguns will be expensive, the group said; and the handgun manufacturing process will have to be redesigned to accommodate microstamping. And then there are the anticipated licensing fees that would have to be paid to the sole-source micro-stamping patent holder.
"Mandating microstamping will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers in California and prices for available guns will skyrocket," the National Shooting Sports Foundation says on its Web site.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
It's Official, Romney is Out!
I watched Mitt Romnet speak at the CPAC convention.
I have to agree with everything he said concerning the war on terror.
This effectively hands McCain the GOP nomination.
Yeah, Huckabee may get a few delegates, but he never really stood a chance.
So the question remains, Where does a conservative voter go on election day?
McCain needs our (gun owners) support to win the general election. There are no two
ways about it. We are 80,000,000 strong. That is many times more people then will show
up and vote at the 2008 elections. No, as a gun owner I am not lamenting the loss of Romney.
But what we are left with is no plate full of sunshine either.
We as gun owners need to make our voice heard.
If we fail to do this the blood of freedom and liberty will be on our hands.
As a gun owner, conservative and gun rights activist, the choices we have for the highest office in the land scare the hell out of me.
The only hope we have is to keep from losing conservative seats on capital hill. - grumpy
Romney will suspend his presidential campaign
February 7, 2008
ASSOCIATED PRESS
UPDATED AT 12:20 P.M.: WASHINGTON — Republican Mitt Romney will suspend his presidential campaign, effectively conceding the party's nomination to Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Associated Press is reporting.
Romney, a MIchigan native and son of the late governor George Romney, is scheculed to speak to the Conservative Political Action Conference this afternoon. The AP said the former Massachusetts governor will say: “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror..
Advertisement
OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1');
document.write('');
“This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters ... many of you right here in this room ... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming president. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.”
I have to agree with everything he said concerning the war on terror.
This effectively hands McCain the GOP nomination.
Yeah, Huckabee may get a few delegates, but he never really stood a chance.
So the question remains, Where does a conservative voter go on election day?
McCain needs our (gun owners) support to win the general election. There are no two
ways about it. We are 80,000,000 strong. That is many times more people then will show
up and vote at the 2008 elections. No, as a gun owner I am not lamenting the loss of Romney.
But what we are left with is no plate full of sunshine either.
We as gun owners need to make our voice heard.
If we fail to do this the blood of freedom and liberty will be on our hands.
As a gun owner, conservative and gun rights activist, the choices we have for the highest office in the land scare the hell out of me.
The only hope we have is to keep from losing conservative seats on capital hill. - grumpy
Romney will suspend his presidential campaign
February 7, 2008
ASSOCIATED PRESS
UPDATED AT 12:20 P.M.: WASHINGTON — Republican Mitt Romney will suspend his presidential campaign, effectively conceding the party's nomination to Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Associated Press is reporting.
Romney, a MIchigan native and son of the late governor George Romney, is scheculed to speak to the Conservative Political Action Conference this afternoon. The AP said the former Massachusetts governor will say: “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror..
Advertisement
OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1');
document.write('');
“This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters ... many of you right here in this room ... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming president. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.”
L.A. stand off gone bad.
This is a terrible incident, it is also too bad that the liberals will use this as ammo to push for more gun bans. In California it will hurt gun owners even worse because it seems to me that their state reps will ban or tax anything that has to do with guns.
The families involved, are in my prayers. - Stumpy
4 Dead in Winnetka Standoff
Last Edited: Thursday, 07 Feb 2008, 5:10 AM PST
Created: Thursday, 07 Feb 2008, 12:33 AM PST
FOX 11 News
"Four people were shot and killed, including an LAPD SWAT officer, during a standoff in Winnetka that began last night and was continuing today."The suspect is still barricaded inside the home," Lt. Ruben Delatorre of the Los Angeles Police Department's Media Relations section said around 4:30 a.m. First-Assistant Police Chief Jim McDonnell and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa planned to hold a pre-dawn news conference at Northridge Medical Center on Roscoe Blvd. in Northridge to discuss the violence. The incident began around 9 p.m. yesterday when a man locked himself up inside a home near Vanowen Street and Oakdale Avenue, according to an officer at the Los Angeles Police Department's West Valley Station. Police did not immediately release additional information. During the standoff, two SWAT team officers were shot and taken to a hospital, according to camera crews at the scene. One of the officers succumbed to his wounds, people familiar with the operation told them. Three other people, believed to be family members of the suspect, were fatally shot during the incident, camera crews reported. One of the bodies was outside on the front lawn of the home.
Some 200 LAPD officers, including SWAT team members, were surrounding the home early this morning. An armored SWAT vehicle was at the scene A four-block perimeter was set up around the location and police helicopters circled overhead throughout the night."(from My Fox Los Angeles)
The families involved, are in my prayers. - Stumpy
4 Dead in Winnetka Standoff
Last Edited: Thursday, 07 Feb 2008, 5:10 AM PST
Created: Thursday, 07 Feb 2008, 12:33 AM PST
FOX 11 News
"Four people were shot and killed, including an LAPD SWAT officer, during a standoff in Winnetka that began last night and was continuing today."The suspect is still barricaded inside the home," Lt. Ruben Delatorre of the Los Angeles Police Department's Media Relations section said around 4:30 a.m. First-Assistant Police Chief Jim McDonnell and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa planned to hold a pre-dawn news conference at Northridge Medical Center on Roscoe Blvd. in Northridge to discuss the violence. The incident began around 9 p.m. yesterday when a man locked himself up inside a home near Vanowen Street and Oakdale Avenue, according to an officer at the Los Angeles Police Department's West Valley Station. Police did not immediately release additional information. During the standoff, two SWAT team officers were shot and taken to a hospital, according to camera crews at the scene. One of the officers succumbed to his wounds, people familiar with the operation told them. Three other people, believed to be family members of the suspect, were fatally shot during the incident, camera crews reported. One of the bodies was outside on the front lawn of the home.
Some 200 LAPD officers, including SWAT team members, were surrounding the home early this morning. An armored SWAT vehicle was at the scene A four-block perimeter was set up around the location and police helicopters circled overhead throughout the night."(from My Fox Los Angeles)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Gun Owners; Brace Yourself
Yesterday was "Super Tuesday". Woo Hoo!
Right now all we hear about in the news is the latest in the presidential primary elections.
But lets look ahead, shall we. With no real pro-gun candidate that stands a chance in Hades of winning, The near future could be grim.
If you are a gun owner, get ready. The new president will be sworn in before 12 short months have come and gone.
Do you think your hunting rifle will be immune from new gun legislation? Wrong.
How about your trap and skeet gun? wrong.
Law abiding citizens who hunt, collect or otherwise engage in firearms activities will all end up being demonized for the owning of a firearm.
As I watched the news,just five hours after an idiotic criminal went on his killing spree at Virginia Tech., it was already starting.
The press was already calling for more gun control. More gun laws.
See, that's the problem with criminals. They do not follow laws.
Typical of the Liberal mainstream press such as CBS, ABC, NBC and even Fox News,
all legal and law abiding gun owners are too often chastised.
When was the last time you saw anything good reported by these useful idiots concerning gun ownership or protecting our constitutional rights?
We are almost without exception portrayed as stupid rednecks and members of some radical militia group,hell bent on drinking Jack Daniels and overthrowing the government.
Come 2009, Liberals will be hell bent on trading our constitutional rights for the illusion of safety. Most of the 80,000,000 gun owners in this country will be too limp wristed or weak spined to even try to do something about it.
I started hunting when I turned 11 years old. I have owned firearms all of my life. Right now I own over 40 of them, Including
AK-47's, Glocks, SKS's and a whole lot of other guns that the press has demonized over the years.
In my 43 years of existence, I have never seen a firearm jump up of the table or out of a closet and try to kill somebody on it's own.
It just doesn't happen. It cannot happen. a gun is nothing more than an inanimate object. It is a tool that is used for certain situations for which it is required.
Nothing more, nothing less.
People kill people, period. They have been killing each other since Cain and Abel. Oh yeah, that's right. the liberals don't want the Bible mentioned either. Sorry about that slip up. Not really.
When you made breakfast this morning, Who did the cooking? The frying pan? Nope. The Spatula? Not a chance.
YOU DID. You provided the aforethought. You grabbed that Chicken fetus out of refrigerator and violently cracked it up side the pan and watched as it slid out of the shell and sizzled on hot steel. Take some responsibility, people. Jeesh.
Every single time I have fired any of my firearms, I have done it. The firearm never fired on it's own.
I have fired each and every one of the literally hundreds of thousands of rounds that I have fired on purpose.
Not one was fired in anger. But the point is that I, Myself fired them. The firearm did not.
I believe people should be held responsible for their own actions. I dont believe that a certain job or income level absolves a person from responsibility.
We do have a problem in this country, but it does not have anything to do with guns. It has to do with morality.
Nuff said. - Grumpy
Ted Nugent USA and the Archery in the Schools Program
Ted Nugent USA and the Archery in the Schools Program
In the words of the Whackmaster himself, “Ted Nugent United Sportsmen of America (TNUSA) is an organization of families working together as a tribe, united by the Native American Blood-Brother badge of honor, to promote family, community, God and country, hunting, fishing, trapping, resource management, and the God-given rights and freedoms deep in our hearts, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, via the hands-on environmental awareness and education crusade, to clean up mother earth for a higher quality life for future generations. We believe in the Spirit of the Wild".
Here in northern Michigan, TNUSA of Michigan has been thriving and helping to keep alive the vision of it’s founder, Ted Nugent, to educate the public, especially the youth of Michigan in the wonders of the outdoors and how we can utilize all things wild in the way Mother Nature intended, while at the same time insuring that our precious natural resources are kept intact for the enjoyment of future generations.
We are presently involved in promoting the Archery in the Schools Program and have assisted various public schools in implementing that program. We help out with the financial aspect of the program by holding various events and securing sponsors. We then donate any proceeds to the various schools so that they may be spent on the archery program.
The archery program itself is priced at $2,600.00, which is a big burden for Michigan’s already cash strapped school system. The cost of the program includes all the equipment needed to start an archery program within a given school district. This includes bows, targets, arrows and training material.
The Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources offers a grant to cover half the cost of the program, as well as free training to teachers and physical education staff.
This leaves the school district with $1300.00 that must be raised by the schools, students or outside organizations like TNUSA of Michigan.
Here in the Eastern Upper Peninsula, we are looking forward to helping schools that have already shown interest in the program and have applied for the Archery in the Schools grant. This includes area schools in Rudyard, Cedarville, Engadine and Newberry districts. We will then try to develop interest in other EUP schools as well. Our goal is to implement the program with zero cost to the schools.
TNUSA of Michigan continues to forge ahead with their success in getting kids away from the drugs, alcohol, gangs and crime that has been such a negative force in the lives of so many. Archery in the schools is just one tool in the toolbox that every school should take advantage of.
We would like to encourage School Faculty, Parents or Students that are interested in either the Archery in the Schools Program or Ted Nugent United Sportsmen of America to contact TNUSA by visiting the web site www.tnusami.com
Crunch Time May be Coming for Right to Arms for Personal Self-Defense, Warns Gun Law Expert
“The crunch time for the individual Second Amendment civil right of law-abiding American citizens to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense may be fast upon us,” gun rights expert John M. Snyder warned here todaySnyder noted that current significant factors in the continuing controversy are the forthcoming Supreme Court hearing in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, this year’s presidential campaign, and ongoing attempts by gun-grabbing Members of Congress and state and local legislators to curtail the traditional American right to acquire and use personal firearms for defense of life, family and property.He pointed out that next month the high court is slated to hear arguments in the Heller case. The case revolves around the question of whether or not the virtual ban on private handgun acquisition and possession by citizens in the District of Columbia is a constitutional violation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as an appellate court already has ruled. “Does the Second Amendment contemplate an individual right, as we contend,” said Snyder, “or does it involve the inanity of a so-called ‘collective right’ – really a contradiction in terms, since the very concept of right involves the idea of something inhering in an individual as opposed to a collectivity.”Snyder noted that, while Second Amendment issues seem so far to have been on the back burner this year in the presidential campaign, that easily could change as voters focus more and more on the issue. “There are 80 million law-abiding gun owners in the United States,” Snyder noted. “Just think of what that means. There are tens of millions more gun owners in the United States than there will be voters for the successful presidential candidate in November.”He said also that congressional gun grabbers, such as a group of die-hard anti-gun Senators who recently introduced a bill, S. 2577, to undermine if not eliminate thousands of gun shows annually in the United States, “very well may be playing with fire because of the eventual negative reaction of millions of law-abiding American citizens to their statist attempts to eviscerate Americans’ rights.”Snyder emphasized that, “the United States is gun country. An ongoing USA Today internet survey reveals that of 650,000 participants, 97 percent indicate they believe the Second Amendment contemplates an individual right to keep and bear arms.”A former National Rifle Association magazine editor, Snyder is Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, PR Director of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, and Treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Obama is a Muslim
Obama is a Muslim--------
Why are there so few willing to speak the truth about this guy?
Do you really think having the US under sharia law is a good thing? How can you be so blind? Do some research on the web under Barak Obama Islam--scrape through all the candycoated propaganda on this guy and you will find the truth--go to www.Jihadwatch.com. If he were a real christian(or any other religion) he would never retain a muslim name.
Debbie Schlussel asks one of the most important questions in this year’s Presidential election:
How many Nation of Islam members will work in an Obama White House?
Considering how many NOI members Sen. Barack Hussein Obama has/had working on his staff it’s an important question, and I’d love to Barack’s answer.
Go read Schlussel’s breaking piece with insider information from Obama’s staff, where she concludes:
Barack Obama can denounce Louis Farrakhan ad infinitum. But with supporters like Ms. Saltzman, high-level staffers who are Nation of Islam members, and constantly morphing views on Israel merely for donor appeal, a Barack Obama White House bodes poorly both for Israel and–far more important–for America.
Sheeple, take the blinders off. - Grumpy
Why are there so few willing to speak the truth about this guy?
Do you really think having the US under sharia law is a good thing? How can you be so blind? Do some research on the web under Barak Obama Islam--scrape through all the candycoated propaganda on this guy and you will find the truth--go to www.Jihadwatch.com. If he were a real christian(or any other religion) he would never retain a muslim name.
Debbie Schlussel asks one of the most important questions in this year’s Presidential election:
How many Nation of Islam members will work in an Obama White House?
Considering how many NOI members Sen. Barack Hussein Obama has/had working on his staff it’s an important question, and I’d love to Barack’s answer.
Go read Schlussel’s breaking piece with insider information from Obama’s staff, where she concludes:
Barack Obama can denounce Louis Farrakhan ad infinitum. But with supporters like Ms. Saltzman, high-level staffers who are Nation of Islam members, and constantly morphing views on Israel merely for donor appeal, a Barack Obama White House bodes poorly both for Israel and–far more important–for America.
Sheeple, take the blinders off. - Grumpy
The Bible Says We Have a Duty to Defend Ourselves!
The Bible couldn't be clearer on the right, even the duty we have as believers to self-defense. Let's start in the Old Testament. "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him," we are told in Exodus 22:2.
The next verse says, "If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." In other words, it was perfectly OK to kill a thief breaking into your house. That's the ultimate expression of self-defense. It doesn't matter whether the thief is threatening your life or not.
You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property, the Bible says. The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons.
Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They didn't send in the Marines. The people defended themselves. In 1 Samuel 25:13, we read: "And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff." Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required.
Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?" The answer to the rhetorical question is clear: No. The people had rebelled against God and put away their weapons of self-defense. "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight," David writes in Psalms 144:1. Clearly, this is not a pacifist God we serve. It's God who teaches our hands to war and our fingers to fight.
Over and over again throughout the Old Testament, His people are commanded to fight with the best weapons available to them at that time. And what were those weapons? Swords. They didn't have firearms, but they had sidearms. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus commanded His disciples to buy them and strap them on.
Don't believe me? Check it out. Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." I know. I know. You biblically literate skeptics are going to cite Matthew 26:52-54 how Jesus responded when Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of a Roman guard: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"
Read those verses in context and they support my position.
Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation as well as undermining God's plan to allow Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection.
Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place at his side. He didn't say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves.
The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God.
What Jesus was saying was: "Peter, this is not the right time for a fight."
In the context of America's current battle as we rebuild after the devastation of Sept. 11 2001 and defend against ongoing terrorism at the same time we should recall Nehemiah, who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. "They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon," we're told in Nehemiah 4:17-18. "For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded."
Any more questions, skeptics? - grumpy
The next verse says, "If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." In other words, it was perfectly OK to kill a thief breaking into your house. That's the ultimate expression of self-defense. It doesn't matter whether the thief is threatening your life or not.
You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property, the Bible says. The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons.
Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They didn't send in the Marines. The people defended themselves. In 1 Samuel 25:13, we read: "And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff." Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required.
Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?" The answer to the rhetorical question is clear: No. The people had rebelled against God and put away their weapons of self-defense. "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight," David writes in Psalms 144:1. Clearly, this is not a pacifist God we serve. It's God who teaches our hands to war and our fingers to fight.
Over and over again throughout the Old Testament, His people are commanded to fight with the best weapons available to them at that time. And what were those weapons? Swords. They didn't have firearms, but they had sidearms. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus commanded His disciples to buy them and strap them on.
Don't believe me? Check it out. Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." I know. I know. You biblically literate skeptics are going to cite Matthew 26:52-54 how Jesus responded when Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of a Roman guard: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"
Read those verses in context and they support my position.
Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation as well as undermining God's plan to allow Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection.
Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place at his side. He didn't say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves.
The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God.
What Jesus was saying was: "Peter, this is not the right time for a fight."
In the context of America's current battle as we rebuild after the devastation of Sept. 11 2001 and defend against ongoing terrorism at the same time we should recall Nehemiah, who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. "They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon," we're told in Nehemiah 4:17-18. "For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded."
Any more questions, skeptics? - grumpy
No Matter Who Wins the Office of U.S. President, The Constitution is Screwed
The following information is from the Gun Owner's of America website at http://gunowners.org/pres08/
Credit is given to the individual writers of each segment.
I am posting it here because this stuff needs be yelled from the mountain tops.
- grumpy.
Hillary Clinton: Socialist Gun-Grabber by Craig FieldsDirector of Internet Operations. GOA
It is patently obvious that Hillary Clinton's policies are of a decidely socialist bent -- generally along the European model. America awakened to this truth as a result of the "Hillarycare" debacle during her husband's first term.
Since becoming a Senator from New York, though, she has added big-government gun control to her resume.
There is really little point in detailing Clinton's vote-by-vote record on the Second Amendment. That's because every single time there has been a gun-related vote in the Senate that GOA has tracked, Sen. Clinton has voted anti-gun. Without fail, she opts to restrict the rights of Americans to keep and bear firearms -- 100% of the time.
So, in keeping with the socialist ideals which guide her policies in other areas, she's a dedicated gun-grabber.
But the danger is far greater than that. She doesn't just vote wrong... she is an active leader in the campaign to disarm the citizenry step by step. Thus, it is far more telling to discuss what previous and upcoming restrictive legislation she cosponsors.
Sponsoring bills is the hallmark of the most outspoken anti-gun leaders such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. They constantly come up with new ideas to chip away at the Second Amendment and then write them into legislation. Clinton doesn't do this at all. She's too busy socializing other aspects of American life.
Any legislator can write any bill he or she wants, but getting one passed is (thankfully) another story indeed. That's where cosponsorship comes into play. Telling fellow legislators "Hey, I'm with you on this... put my name on the bill, too" is Sen. Clinton's preferred course of action.
The bottom line legislatively is that bills with large numbers of cosponsors stand a much greater chance of getting committee hearings, then voted out of committee, and finally scheduled for a full vote on the floor of the legislative body. Cosponsorship is important, and it identifies those (in addition to the bill's author) who are leading the charge for its passage. It is so important that the GOA rating of "F-" is reserved solely for sponsors and cosponsors of anti-gun bills -- no legislator can drop that low in any other manner, even with a 0% voting record such as Clinton's.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has truly earned her F- rating. Her record of cosponsoring anti-gun initiatives reads like a Sarah Brady wish list.
Anti-gun Bills Hillary Clinton Cosponsored:
Congress:
S. 368: Massively expand federal funding and control of local law enforcement.
110th
S. 456: Treat firearms offenses as though they were Mafia or gang-releated crimes.
110th
S. 527: Redefine more handgun ammunition as "armor piercing".
109th
S. 578: FBI to maintain gun sales records of persons on "watch lists" for 10 years.
109th
S. 620: Reinstate the expired ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines.
109th
S. 645: Semi-auto ban plus a ban on some youth sportshooting competitions.
109th
S. 935: Fifty-caliber ban.
109th
S. 22: Omnibus gun control: gun show ban, lifetime juvenile offender ban, FBI record-keeping, much more.
108th
S. 448: Huge bill including a magazine ban, gun show ban, mandatory trigger locks, one-handgun-a-month, etc.
108th
S. 1034: Semi-auto ban reauthorization.
108th
S. 1431: Vastly expanded semi-auto ban reauthorization (more guns banned plus other anti-gun provisions).
108th
S. 1774: Permanently ban polymer-framed (so-called "plastic") firearms.
108th
S. 1807: Gun show ban.
108th
S. 1882: FBI to maintain gun sales records of persons on "watch lists".
108th
S. 1983: National ballistic registry of all new fireams, plus increased BATF power and funding.
108th
S. 2109: Ten-year extension of the semi-auto ban then in effect.
108th
S. 16: "Crime bill" including: gun show ban, lifetime juvenile offender ban, FBI record-keeping, much more.
107th
S. 767: Gun show ban.
107th
S. 924: Expand federal police power, specifically the federal government's role in "firearms-related incidents."
107th
S. 940: Gun show ban included in a large education bill.
107th
S. 1253: Register lawful gun buyers for a minimum of 90 days.
107th
S. 1788: Audit background check information; make it available for both criminal and civil inquiries.
107th
Will The Real Romney Please Stand Up?
by Erich PrattDirector of Communications GOA
As he travels through the South -- contemplating a run for the presidency -- Mitt Romney sounds like the modern-day incarnation of John Wayne.
He tells shooters how he used to hunt rabbits as a boy. He visits with attendees at gun shows, impressing them with his knowledge of the Bill of Rights. He quotes the "right to keep and bear arms" language from memory and assures gun owners he's on their side.
But wait, isn't this the same Mitt Romney -- the former governor of Massachusetts -- who boasted that his view on firearms was "not going to make me the hero" of the gun lobby?
In fact, it is one and the same man. So what happened to the candidate who promised that he would not lift a finger to "chip away" at the gun laws in Massachusetts -- a state that has some of the most draconian gun restrictions in the union?
When Romney ran for Senate in 1994, he told the Boston Herald that he supported the Brady gun-control law and a ban on scores of semi-automatic firearms. Both laws were heavily supported by Democrats and -- according to President Bill Clinton -- were the reason that his party lost control of the Congress in 1994.
Ten years later, the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms was stripped from the law books. The banned guns became legal once again, and despite the Chicken Little cries from gun control advocates around the country, crime rates did not soar.
This should not be surprising. After the semi-auto ban expired in 2004, the Congressional Research Service admitted there was no evidence to support the notion that the ban had actually reduced crime, especially since -- and here's a great admission -- the "banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders" before the ban was implemented.
Likewise, the Brady gun control law has done nothing to curb crime, as was reported in one of the nation's leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association. The journal definitively stated in 2000 that the Brady law has failed to reduce "homicide rates and overall suicide rates" in states after they were required to impose waiting periods and background checks.
But despite the failure of these gun laws, Romney did not back off his support for gun control during his run for governor in 2002.
"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said during a gubernatorial debate with Democratic candidate Shannon O'Brien. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Perhaps Mr. Romney knows something that the criminologists don't know -- the criminologists who have actually studied these issues and have reported that gun control has failed to make people safer.
What we do know is that even in Massachusetts, Romney has tried to appease both sides of the aisle. As governor, Romney supported legislation to ease restrictions on gun licensing in the state, but he only did so at the expense of gun rights, as he signed a draconian ban on common, household firearms that are owned by millions of Americans across the nation.
This is kind of like the thief who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands $100, but then gives you $25 back to "soften" the blow.
Seeing that Mr. Romney likes to frequent both sides of the legislative aisle, Americans are going to want to know where he really stands on issues that are important to them. And when they go to polls next year, voters are going to be asking, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?"
John McCain's Gun Control Problemby John VellecoDirector of Federal Affairs
In 2000, Andrew McKelvey, the billionaire founder of monster.com, threw a sizable chunk of his fortune into the gun control debate.
It was shortly after the Columbine school shooting. Bill Clinton was in the White House and gun control was daily front-page news. McKelvey wanted in.
He started out contributing to Handgun Control Inc., which had since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But while he agreed with their gun banning goals, McKelvey thought the way they packaged their message was too polarizing.
"I told them that Handgun Control was the wrong name. I thought what they were doing was great but I thought it could be done differently," McKelvey said.
So McKelvey struck out on his own and formed Americans for Gun Safety. Although AGS shared almost identical public policy goals as other anti-gun groups, McKelvey portrayed the group as in the 'middle' on the issue and attempted to lure pro-gun advocates into his fold.
To pull it off, he needed a bipartisan coalition with credibility on both sides of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side, the task was easy. Most of the Democrats and a small but vocal minority of Republicans supported President Clinton's gun control agenda.
Finding someone who could stake a claim as a pro-gunner and yet be willing to join McKelvey was not so easy. Enter Senator John McCain.
McCain's star was already falling with conservatives. He had carved out a niche as a 'maverick' as the author of so-called Campaign Finance Reform (more aptly named the incumbent protection act), which was anathema to conservatives but made him a darling of the mainstream media.
Gun owners were outraged over CFR, but McCain still maintained some credibility on the gun issue.
Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill (which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.
But as he ramped up for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the 'maverick' theme, staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent, George W. Bush.
McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey.
Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board.
Political consultant Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, hoped McCain would "bring a conservative perspective to the gun debate."
The ads not only pushed the anti-gun show measure in those two states, they also served to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying against the same type of bill in Congress.
"I think that if the Congress won't act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it's on the ballot," McCain said in an interview.
At the time still a newcomer to the gun control debate, McCain said, "I do believe my view has evolved."
McCain continued to pursue his anti-gun agenda even after his presidential run ended, and the next year he and McKelvey made it to the big screen.
As moviegoers flocked to see Pearl Harbor, they were treated to an anti-gun trailer ad featuring McCain. This time the Senator was pushing legislation to force people to keep firearms locked up in the home.
"We owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up," McCain told viewers.
Economist and author John Lott, Jr., noted, "No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain's push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves."
Also in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor.
Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation -- which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely -- were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and introduced a "compromise" bill to give the issue momentum.
"There is a lot of frustration. He has got his own agenda," one Republican Senator told Roll Call.
After September 11, 2001, McKelvey and McCain, now joined by Lieberman, had a new angle to push gun control.
"Terrorists are exploiting the gun show loophole," AGS ads hyped. McCain and Lieberman hit the airwaves again in a series of radio and TV spots, thanks to McKelvey's multi-million dollar investment.
A Cox News Service article noted that, "The ads first focused on gun safety but switched to terrorism after Sept. 11. Americans for Gun Safety said the switch is legitimate."
However, Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel pointed out that, "the McCain-Lieberman bill is loaded with poison pills which would allow a single appointed official to prevent any gun show, anywhere in the United States from operating."
Ultimately, the anti-gun legislation was killed in the Congress and AGS fizzled out and disappeared altogether. The issues for which McKelvey spent over $10 million are still in play, however, and John McCain remains a supporter of those causes. In fact, as recently as 2004, McCain was able to force a vote on a gun show amendment.
In the post-Columbine and post-9/11 environments, the Second Amendment was under attack as never before. Pro-gun patriotic Americans who stood as a bulwark to keep the Congress from eviscerating the Constitution were dismayed to look across the battle lines only to see Senator McCain working with the enemy.
John McCain tried running for president in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This year it appears he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long
John McCains Liberal Voting Record
Obama to Get the Dems 'Barack' into the Business of Gun Control
by Erich Pratt, Director of Communications GOA
It sounded like a report from the National Enquirer. Dick Cheney and Barack Obama... cousins?
Say it ain't so, Mrs. Cheney.
But in fact, the Vice-President's wife revealed this bombshell in her recent book, Blue Skies, No Fences. According to Lynne Cheney, the current veep and the Illinois Democrat Senator, who wants to be the next president, are distant cousins -- eighth cousins, to be exact.1
When hit with this revelation, the Obama campaign took the news in stride, saying that, "Every family has a black sheep."2
All kidding aside, it's too bad that Dick Cheney and Barack Obama didn't do more shooting and target practice together in their youth, because today, they couldn't be more polar opposites when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Whereas one would be hard-pressed to find an anti-gun vote on Cheney's House record -- as he served the state of Wyoming for many years -- Obama's gun record is just simply atrocious.
Oh sure, Obama told Iowa radio listeners last year that he is a "strong believer" in the rights of hunters and sportsmen, and that homeowners should have a firearm "to protect their home and their family." But then in the next breath, he says, "It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic [sic]."3
Good thing the ban on magazines that Obama supports was not in effect during the Los Angeles riots of 1992. That's when Korean merchants successfully used their semi-autos -- with large magazines containing multiple rounds -- to keep looters away from their stores. Their businesses remained standing, even while many others (which were left unprotected) burned to the ground.
Obama supports the existing gun control laws on the books. Nowhere in his literature or in his campaign speeches does he stake out a position in favor of repealing any gun control measure that has passed into law.
Not surprisingly, Obama supports the gun ban in the nation's capital, saying the "DC handgun law is constitutional."4 And he is opposed to people using guns for self-defense, when those guns are owned in localities like Washington, DC and Chicago where firearms are banned.
Illinois resident Hale DeMar was prosecuted by the town of Wilmette for using a handgun in his home to defend his family in 2003. Because Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns, several Illinois state legislators introduced SB 2165 to protect the right of self-defense for residents like DeMar.
True to form, Obama voted against the pro-gun legislation.5
It is very telling that Obama moved further to the left than most of the liberal legislators in his state. The self-defense bill protecting gun owners like DeMar passed the state senate 41-16 and was later enacted into law over the governor's veto (and over Obama's opposition).
The concealed carry of firearms is another important issue for gun owners, and yet Obama is not only opposed to citizens carrying guns, he supports using federal laws to override those states which currently allow the practice.
In 2004, Obama said he supports a national ban on concealed carry because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents."6 Never mind the fact that concealed carry laws have improved the safety of citizens in the states that have enacted such laws.7
Obama has also taken a strong position in favor of the Clinton semi-auto ban which sunset in 2004. "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law," Obama said.8
Well, there's nothing that's "common sense" about the Clinton ban. Not only did it outlaw almost 200 types of firearms, legislators like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York tried to amend the law (before it sunset) to include additional types of semi-autos -- even banning classic (wood-stock) long guns such as the Remington shotgun which Senator John Kerry received as a gift during his 2004 presidential bid.9
Bottom line: Senator Obama may not be as gun ban-crazed as the infamous Chuck Schumer. He may not lay awake at night dreaming of ways to disarm honest gun owners. But sure enough, Obama is a committed anti-gunner.
The chart below lays out the key votes and positions that Sen. Obama has taken over the past few years.
Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes
The U.S. Senate Debated:
ObamaVoted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10
Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11
Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12
Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13
Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14
Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15
Anti-gun
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16
Pro-gun
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17
Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18
Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
Anti-gun
Credit is given to the individual writers of each segment.
I am posting it here because this stuff needs be yelled from the mountain tops.
- grumpy.
Hillary Clinton: Socialist Gun-Grabber by Craig FieldsDirector of Internet Operations. GOA
It is patently obvious that Hillary Clinton's policies are of a decidely socialist bent -- generally along the European model. America awakened to this truth as a result of the "Hillarycare" debacle during her husband's first term.
Since becoming a Senator from New York, though, she has added big-government gun control to her resume.
There is really little point in detailing Clinton's vote-by-vote record on the Second Amendment. That's because every single time there has been a gun-related vote in the Senate that GOA has tracked, Sen. Clinton has voted anti-gun. Without fail, she opts to restrict the rights of Americans to keep and bear firearms -- 100% of the time.
So, in keeping with the socialist ideals which guide her policies in other areas, she's a dedicated gun-grabber.
But the danger is far greater than that. She doesn't just vote wrong... she is an active leader in the campaign to disarm the citizenry step by step. Thus, it is far more telling to discuss what previous and upcoming restrictive legislation she cosponsors.
Sponsoring bills is the hallmark of the most outspoken anti-gun leaders such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. They constantly come up with new ideas to chip away at the Second Amendment and then write them into legislation. Clinton doesn't do this at all. She's too busy socializing other aspects of American life.
Any legislator can write any bill he or she wants, but getting one passed is (thankfully) another story indeed. That's where cosponsorship comes into play. Telling fellow legislators "Hey, I'm with you on this... put my name on the bill, too" is Sen. Clinton's preferred course of action.
The bottom line legislatively is that bills with large numbers of cosponsors stand a much greater chance of getting committee hearings, then voted out of committee, and finally scheduled for a full vote on the floor of the legislative body. Cosponsorship is important, and it identifies those (in addition to the bill's author) who are leading the charge for its passage. It is so important that the GOA rating of "F-" is reserved solely for sponsors and cosponsors of anti-gun bills -- no legislator can drop that low in any other manner, even with a 0% voting record such as Clinton's.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has truly earned her F- rating. Her record of cosponsoring anti-gun initiatives reads like a Sarah Brady wish list.
Anti-gun Bills Hillary Clinton Cosponsored:
Congress:
S. 368: Massively expand federal funding and control of local law enforcement.
110th
S. 456: Treat firearms offenses as though they were Mafia or gang-releated crimes.
110th
S. 527: Redefine more handgun ammunition as "armor piercing".
109th
S. 578: FBI to maintain gun sales records of persons on "watch lists" for 10 years.
109th
S. 620: Reinstate the expired ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines.
109th
S. 645: Semi-auto ban plus a ban on some youth sportshooting competitions.
109th
S. 935: Fifty-caliber ban.
109th
S. 22: Omnibus gun control: gun show ban, lifetime juvenile offender ban, FBI record-keeping, much more.
108th
S. 448: Huge bill including a magazine ban, gun show ban, mandatory trigger locks, one-handgun-a-month, etc.
108th
S. 1034: Semi-auto ban reauthorization.
108th
S. 1431: Vastly expanded semi-auto ban reauthorization (more guns banned plus other anti-gun provisions).
108th
S. 1774: Permanently ban polymer-framed (so-called "plastic") firearms.
108th
S. 1807: Gun show ban.
108th
S. 1882: FBI to maintain gun sales records of persons on "watch lists".
108th
S. 1983: National ballistic registry of all new fireams, plus increased BATF power and funding.
108th
S. 2109: Ten-year extension of the semi-auto ban then in effect.
108th
S. 16: "Crime bill" including: gun show ban, lifetime juvenile offender ban, FBI record-keeping, much more.
107th
S. 767: Gun show ban.
107th
S. 924: Expand federal police power, specifically the federal government's role in "firearms-related incidents."
107th
S. 940: Gun show ban included in a large education bill.
107th
S. 1253: Register lawful gun buyers for a minimum of 90 days.
107th
S. 1788: Audit background check information; make it available for both criminal and civil inquiries.
107th
Will The Real Romney Please Stand Up?
by Erich PrattDirector of Communications GOA
As he travels through the South -- contemplating a run for the presidency -- Mitt Romney sounds like the modern-day incarnation of John Wayne.
He tells shooters how he used to hunt rabbits as a boy. He visits with attendees at gun shows, impressing them with his knowledge of the Bill of Rights. He quotes the "right to keep and bear arms" language from memory and assures gun owners he's on their side.
But wait, isn't this the same Mitt Romney -- the former governor of Massachusetts -- who boasted that his view on firearms was "not going to make me the hero" of the gun lobby?
In fact, it is one and the same man. So what happened to the candidate who promised that he would not lift a finger to "chip away" at the gun laws in Massachusetts -- a state that has some of the most draconian gun restrictions in the union?
When Romney ran for Senate in 1994, he told the Boston Herald that he supported the Brady gun-control law and a ban on scores of semi-automatic firearms. Both laws were heavily supported by Democrats and -- according to President Bill Clinton -- were the reason that his party lost control of the Congress in 1994.
Ten years later, the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms was stripped from the law books. The banned guns became legal once again, and despite the Chicken Little cries from gun control advocates around the country, crime rates did not soar.
This should not be surprising. After the semi-auto ban expired in 2004, the Congressional Research Service admitted there was no evidence to support the notion that the ban had actually reduced crime, especially since -- and here's a great admission -- the "banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders" before the ban was implemented.
Likewise, the Brady gun control law has done nothing to curb crime, as was reported in one of the nation's leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association. The journal definitively stated in 2000 that the Brady law has failed to reduce "homicide rates and overall suicide rates" in states after they were required to impose waiting periods and background checks.
But despite the failure of these gun laws, Romney did not back off his support for gun control during his run for governor in 2002.
"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said during a gubernatorial debate with Democratic candidate Shannon O'Brien. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Perhaps Mr. Romney knows something that the criminologists don't know -- the criminologists who have actually studied these issues and have reported that gun control has failed to make people safer.
What we do know is that even in Massachusetts, Romney has tried to appease both sides of the aisle. As governor, Romney supported legislation to ease restrictions on gun licensing in the state, but he only did so at the expense of gun rights, as he signed a draconian ban on common, household firearms that are owned by millions of Americans across the nation.
This is kind of like the thief who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands $100, but then gives you $25 back to "soften" the blow.
Seeing that Mr. Romney likes to frequent both sides of the legislative aisle, Americans are going to want to know where he really stands on issues that are important to them. And when they go to polls next year, voters are going to be asking, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?"
John McCain's Gun Control Problemby John VellecoDirector of Federal Affairs
In 2000, Andrew McKelvey, the billionaire founder of monster.com, threw a sizable chunk of his fortune into the gun control debate.
It was shortly after the Columbine school shooting. Bill Clinton was in the White House and gun control was daily front-page news. McKelvey wanted in.
He started out contributing to Handgun Control Inc., which had since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But while he agreed with their gun banning goals, McKelvey thought the way they packaged their message was too polarizing.
"I told them that Handgun Control was the wrong name. I thought what they were doing was great but I thought it could be done differently," McKelvey said.
So McKelvey struck out on his own and formed Americans for Gun Safety. Although AGS shared almost identical public policy goals as other anti-gun groups, McKelvey portrayed the group as in the 'middle' on the issue and attempted to lure pro-gun advocates into his fold.
To pull it off, he needed a bipartisan coalition with credibility on both sides of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side, the task was easy. Most of the Democrats and a small but vocal minority of Republicans supported President Clinton's gun control agenda.
Finding someone who could stake a claim as a pro-gunner and yet be willing to join McKelvey was not so easy. Enter Senator John McCain.
McCain's star was already falling with conservatives. He had carved out a niche as a 'maverick' as the author of so-called Campaign Finance Reform (more aptly named the incumbent protection act), which was anathema to conservatives but made him a darling of the mainstream media.
Gun owners were outraged over CFR, but McCain still maintained some credibility on the gun issue.
Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill (which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.
But as he ramped up for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the 'maverick' theme, staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent, George W. Bush.
McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey.
Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board.
Political consultant Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, hoped McCain would "bring a conservative perspective to the gun debate."
The ads not only pushed the anti-gun show measure in those two states, they also served to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying against the same type of bill in Congress.
"I think that if the Congress won't act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it's on the ballot," McCain said in an interview.
At the time still a newcomer to the gun control debate, McCain said, "I do believe my view has evolved."
McCain continued to pursue his anti-gun agenda even after his presidential run ended, and the next year he and McKelvey made it to the big screen.
As moviegoers flocked to see Pearl Harbor, they were treated to an anti-gun trailer ad featuring McCain. This time the Senator was pushing legislation to force people to keep firearms locked up in the home.
"We owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up," McCain told viewers.
Economist and author John Lott, Jr., noted, "No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain's push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves."
Also in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor.
Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation -- which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely -- were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and introduced a "compromise" bill to give the issue momentum.
"There is a lot of frustration. He has got his own agenda," one Republican Senator told Roll Call.
After September 11, 2001, McKelvey and McCain, now joined by Lieberman, had a new angle to push gun control.
"Terrorists are exploiting the gun show loophole," AGS ads hyped. McCain and Lieberman hit the airwaves again in a series of radio and TV spots, thanks to McKelvey's multi-million dollar investment.
A Cox News Service article noted that, "The ads first focused on gun safety but switched to terrorism after Sept. 11. Americans for Gun Safety said the switch is legitimate."
However, Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel pointed out that, "the McCain-Lieberman bill is loaded with poison pills which would allow a single appointed official to prevent any gun show, anywhere in the United States from operating."
Ultimately, the anti-gun legislation was killed in the Congress and AGS fizzled out and disappeared altogether. The issues for which McKelvey spent over $10 million are still in play, however, and John McCain remains a supporter of those causes. In fact, as recently as 2004, McCain was able to force a vote on a gun show amendment.
In the post-Columbine and post-9/11 environments, the Second Amendment was under attack as never before. Pro-gun patriotic Americans who stood as a bulwark to keep the Congress from eviscerating the Constitution were dismayed to look across the battle lines only to see Senator McCain working with the enemy.
John McCain tried running for president in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This year it appears he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long
John McCains Liberal Voting Record
Obama to Get the Dems 'Barack' into the Business of Gun Control
by Erich Pratt, Director of Communications GOA
It sounded like a report from the National Enquirer. Dick Cheney and Barack Obama... cousins?
Say it ain't so, Mrs. Cheney.
But in fact, the Vice-President's wife revealed this bombshell in her recent book, Blue Skies, No Fences. According to Lynne Cheney, the current veep and the Illinois Democrat Senator, who wants to be the next president, are distant cousins -- eighth cousins, to be exact.1
When hit with this revelation, the Obama campaign took the news in stride, saying that, "Every family has a black sheep."2
All kidding aside, it's too bad that Dick Cheney and Barack Obama didn't do more shooting and target practice together in their youth, because today, they couldn't be more polar opposites when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Whereas one would be hard-pressed to find an anti-gun vote on Cheney's House record -- as he served the state of Wyoming for many years -- Obama's gun record is just simply atrocious.
Oh sure, Obama told Iowa radio listeners last year that he is a "strong believer" in the rights of hunters and sportsmen, and that homeowners should have a firearm "to protect their home and their family." But then in the next breath, he says, "It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic [sic]."3
Good thing the ban on magazines that Obama supports was not in effect during the Los Angeles riots of 1992. That's when Korean merchants successfully used their semi-autos -- with large magazines containing multiple rounds -- to keep looters away from their stores. Their businesses remained standing, even while many others (which were left unprotected) burned to the ground.
Obama supports the existing gun control laws on the books. Nowhere in his literature or in his campaign speeches does he stake out a position in favor of repealing any gun control measure that has passed into law.
Not surprisingly, Obama supports the gun ban in the nation's capital, saying the "DC handgun law is constitutional."4 And he is opposed to people using guns for self-defense, when those guns are owned in localities like Washington, DC and Chicago where firearms are banned.
Illinois resident Hale DeMar was prosecuted by the town of Wilmette for using a handgun in his home to defend his family in 2003. Because Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns, several Illinois state legislators introduced SB 2165 to protect the right of self-defense for residents like DeMar.
True to form, Obama voted against the pro-gun legislation.5
It is very telling that Obama moved further to the left than most of the liberal legislators in his state. The self-defense bill protecting gun owners like DeMar passed the state senate 41-16 and was later enacted into law over the governor's veto (and over Obama's opposition).
The concealed carry of firearms is another important issue for gun owners, and yet Obama is not only opposed to citizens carrying guns, he supports using federal laws to override those states which currently allow the practice.
In 2004, Obama said he supports a national ban on concealed carry because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents."6 Never mind the fact that concealed carry laws have improved the safety of citizens in the states that have enacted such laws.7
Obama has also taken a strong position in favor of the Clinton semi-auto ban which sunset in 2004. "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law," Obama said.8
Well, there's nothing that's "common sense" about the Clinton ban. Not only did it outlaw almost 200 types of firearms, legislators like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York tried to amend the law (before it sunset) to include additional types of semi-autos -- even banning classic (wood-stock) long guns such as the Remington shotgun which Senator John Kerry received as a gift during his 2004 presidential bid.9
Bottom line: Senator Obama may not be as gun ban-crazed as the infamous Chuck Schumer. He may not lay awake at night dreaming of ways to disarm honest gun owners. But sure enough, Obama is a committed anti-gunner.
The chart below lays out the key votes and positions that Sen. Obama has taken over the past few years.
Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes
The U.S. Senate Debated:
ObamaVoted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10
Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11
Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12
Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13
Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14
Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15
Anti-gun
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16
Pro-gun
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17
Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18
Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
Anti-gun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
