Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco
There are many gun attachments available these days, but none more important than the US Constitution.
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Posts tagged ‘Second Amendment Rights’
Facts Don’t Work on Gun Control, so Obama Uses Emotion
Posted by 
David Limbaugh | Oct 06, 2015
URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2015/10/06/facts-dont-work-on-gun-control-so-obama-uses-emotion-n2061577/page/full
- Politicizer in Chief
In his speech on the Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon last week, President Obama sounded more 
upset about America’s gun laws than about the horrific massacre. We barely had the preliminary facts about the shooting, the shooter and the victims, and he was already lecturing the nation again on gun control.
upset about America’s gun laws than about the horrific massacre. We barely had the preliminary facts about the shooting, the shooter and the victims, and he was already lecturing the nation again on gun control.Instead of calling the nation to prayer, he said we would learn about the victims in the coming days and then “wrap everyone who’s grieving with our prayers and our love.” Those words out of the way, he immediately pivoted to complaining that “our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It’s not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel (or) prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America — next week or a couple of months from now.”
We didn’t hear much “heartache and grief” in his speech, but his anger was palpable. It wasn’t anger at the shooter, and it wasn’t sympathy for the victims. It was outrage — or apparent outrage — at America’s Second Amendment advocates.
“We are the only advanced country on earth,” said Obama, “that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months. … The United States … is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense gun-safety laws — even in the face of repeated mass killings.” He said these events happen so often that they’ve “become routine. … We’ve become numb to this.”
He may speak for himself, of course, but I don’t know too many people, especially gun rights advocates, who are numb to such savagery. Many of us believe our society would be safer against gun violence if there weren’t so many “gun-free” zones and if we had more armed guards.
As he has so often done before the powder is dry after similar incidents, he used his bully pulpit (emphasis on “bully”) to misstate statistics as if he were trying for a record number of Pinocchios from fact-checkers.
He said: “We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work — or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns — is not borne out by the evidence.”
What he conveniently omitted is that Oregon had recently strengthened its laws on gun sales and is above 
average among the states on gun regulation. It is one of only 18 states that require universal background checks before the sale of any firearm.
Being a proud Chicagoan, Obama is surely aware that his beloved city, which has distinguished itself in recent years for epic gun violence and death, is in a state that has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. How, then, can he claim that gun laws work? And how would implementing his idea of “common-sense gun-safety laws” make sense?
Though the United States has a high actual number of fatalities from mass shootings given its larger population, Obama ignores that other nations — such as Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel and Switzerland, which all have restrictive gun laws — have higher ratios of such shootings per capita.
The president also fails to acknowledge author John Lott’s findings as of 2010 that all the multiple-victim public shootings (where three or more were killed) in Western Europe and in the United States occurred where civilians were not allowed to carry guns.
Charles C.W. Cooke, in his “The Conservatarian Manifesto,” urges that we regularly debunk “the claim that America is in the midst of a gun-violence ‘epidemic’. … Two reports, both released in May 2013, revealed a striking drop in gun crime over the past twenty years.” Cooke writes that “during the very period that gun laws have been dramatically liberalized across the whole country, gun crime has dropped substantially.”
In his rant, Obama didn’t just distort the evidence. He effectively accused the Republican Congress of allowing these deaths by opposing gun control laws for political reasons, proving that projection is still an important weapon in his partisan arsenal. At a time when he should be using his office and his influence to urge healing and unity, Obama uses them for strident community organizing to advance his agenda.
It is instructive that Obama rages at conservatives and scapegoats the weapons themselves rather than the criminals involved or the state of the human condition that underlies their actions.
It is remarkable that he demands an unconstitutional and meaningless change in the laws purportedly to save innocent lives but vigorously opposes all laws that would protect innocent babies in the womb.
And it is disgraceful that he seeks to inflame our emotions to seduce us into ignoring the facts and suspending our critical faculties long enough to surrender our vital Second Amendment rights.
2nd Amendment advocates push to repeal switchblade, other knife laws
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, Published May 11, 2015, FoxNews.com
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/11/knife-rights-movement-gets-switchblades-other-knife-laws-repealed-in-states/
- Shown here is a spring-assisted knife. (AP)
Once overshadowed by the hot-button gun rights debate, laws restricting knife sales and possession are the new “second front” in the battle to preserve Second Amendment rights. The issue has gained more attention in recent years — most recently in Baltimore, where obscure knife laws have surfaced at the center of the Freddie Gray death case. Well before that case, though, the nonprofit advocacy group Knife Rights has been steadily working in state capitals across the country to roll back or repeal longstanding knife bans and restrictions. And they’ve seen a string of successes.
“We’ve introduced the Second Amendment to a significant number of people who never considered it their amendment,” said Doug Ritter, who founded Knife Rights in Arizona in 2009.
The group argues that possessing and carrying any kind of blade is, as with guns, a right enshrined in the Constitution. They’ve deployed that argument to, so far, help 10 states wipe most — if not all — knife restrictions from the books. It also has successfully advocated for so-called preemption laws in eight states, blocking local jurisdictions from circumventing state law with their own, stricter regulations.
Not all repeals are the same — some leave laws against switchblades like stilettos on the books. But others are comprehensive, like in Oklahoma and Maine, which just legalized switchblades, in March and April respectively.
Knife Rights’ first victory was in 2010, when it worked to get all switchblades, dirks and daggers legalized in New Hampshire. Bills in several other states are currently pending. “There’s no blood running in the streets, no state has come back and said we shouldn’t have done this and tried to reinstate [laws],” Ritter said.
Contrary to the image of gang members carrying butterfly knives to the local rumble, people carry knives for a multitude of reasons, and it is not to maim or kill, Ritter said. “The reality is, millions of Americans use and own knives at home, work, and recreation. But every once in a while someone uses a knife as an arm, to protect the family.”
That’s where the Constitution comes in. “The Second Amendment says ‘the right to bear arms.’ Knife rights are the second front in the defense of our Second Amendment,” Ritter said, noting his group has garnered the support of the National Rifle Association, and employs Todd Rathner, an NRA board member, as its chief lobbyist. Right now, big retail stores sell a range of blades. However, under arcane existing laws, said Ritter, some of those knives could be deemed illegal, as a series of franchises including Home Depot and Paragon Sporting Goods, found out when they were sued by New York City in 2010.
At the federal level, it is still illegal to send or sell switchblades through the mail or across state lines, though there is no restriction on individual possession. Each state has its own regulations, complicated by varying definitions relating to prohibited items and conceal/carry restrictions. In many cases, state laws conflict with local ones. This can be confusing to knife owners, said Ritter, a point that has been highlighted in the case against the police officers involved in Freddie Gray’s arrest and subsequent death in Baltimore.
Police said Gray was carrying “a spring-assisted, one-hand-operated knife,” which reportedly fits Baltimore’s definition of an illegal switchblade, but does not fit Maryland’s. That’s why Marilyn Mosby, the state’s attorney prosecuting the officers, insists Gray was not carrying an illegal weapon when he was apprehended on April 12.
“Simply carrying a knife in your pocket should not be crime,” said Ritter. But one’s interpretation of what is and what is not an illegal blade could have a major impact on the state’s case. “[This case] has raised awareness about knife rights.”
Jacob Sullum, an editor for Reason magazine, made a similar complaint. “If police and prosecutors cannot agree on whether Gray’s knife was legal, of course, it is hardly fair to expect the average citizen to know, let alone subject him to criminal penalties (a fine up to $500 and up to a year in jail under Baltimore’s ordinance) for guessing wrong,” he wrote on May 6.
Maine State Rep. Joel Stetkis, a Republican, successfully lobbied to pass a law that not only allows for switchblades, but all tools with automatic release, which up until now were banned and getting innocent people into trouble, he says.
“People were having their personal property confiscated and charged with a crime and facing jail time … just for having their pocket knife opening in a certain manner,” Stetkis told FoxNews.com. Even if they were ultimately acquitted, “it’s in the newspaper, and on the Internet … That can actually make a difference of whether someone gets an interview or not [for a job].”
This confusion between switchblades, which have an automatic release, and spring-assisted knives, which do not, led to 60,000 arrests in New York City in 10 years, according to an investigation by the Village Voice, in 2014. There, ordinary pocketknives carried by residents have been deemed as “gravity blades,” or knives that can be opened with a flick of the wrist, and therefore considered switchblades and illegal. In 2010, the city said one-third of homicides in New York were caused by knives. Knife Rights is currently suing the city because it says the law is unconstitutional. The “wrist flick” test is “not an objective test at all,” said Ritter.
But not everyone supports the movement. Law enforcement groups have weighed in against various bills, especially those that allow people to carry all manner of blades in public. They say switchblades and combat knives have no place on America’s streets. According to a report by Bloomberg, knives were the second-deadliest weapon behind guns in the U.S. In 2013, 1,500 died from “cutting instruments,” compared with almost 8,500 who died from firearms.
“I’ve seen a lot of deadly attacks with knives and I think repealing all the laws and eliminating them would be ridiculous,” said Jack Rinchich, a retired Florida police chief who now serves as president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. A Marine Corps veteran who spent 40 years in law enforcement, he is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. However, “I do believe we need laws restricting certain types of knives, especially those that are designed to kill,” he told FoxNews.com. “I don’t think anyone should be walking down the street with a combat knife for any reason.”
Chief Sean Mannix, the Texas president of the chiefs’ association, agrees, saying that, “reasonable regulation is okay.”
“I don’t think our society is reflective of one in which the majority wouldn’t be comfortable with people running around with offensive weapons.”
The Second Amendment’s Defining Moment
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/08/26/the-second-amendments-defining-moment/
Researched and Written by Frank Miniter Contributor
- United States Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In March 2008 I chatted with a silver-haired law school professor under the marble pillars of the U.S. Supreme Court building. He was very excited. The court was to about hear Heller v. D.C. The case would decide whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to own and carry guns. He had 20 law students with him. He said anxiously, “When I put in the paperwork to get seats months ago I didn’t know we’d get to see one of the last unresolved constitutional questions debated.” He said this while looking at a line of people hoping to get seats that went down the block, around a corner and out of sight.
Hours later a mainstream reporter next to me in the press section gasped, “Oh no,” when Justice Anthony Kennedy hinted that he believed the 
Second Amendment to be an individual right while asking the government’s attorney a question. Months later, when the high court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right from government infringement, the media was paying attention. Many, however, are missing what’s happening now. The Second Amendment is having its defining moment in history. The decisions now percolating up to the Supreme Court are deciding what guns the Second Amendment covers, when requirements become infringements and more.
Gun-rights and gun-control groups understand that these court decisions illustrate how much elections matter, as the federal judges making these decisions are nominated by the president and voted on by the senate. However, two recent federal court decisions from judges appointed by former president Bill Clinton show how difficult these decisions can be to handicap.
In one just-decided case, California Senior U.S. District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii found that “10-day waiting periods of Penal Code violate the Second Amendment” as applied to people who fall into certain classifications. He found this arbitrary wait time “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.” (The decision can be read here.) This court decision orders the California Department of Justice to allow the “unobstructed release” of guns to those who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a Department of Justice-issued Certificate of Eligibility and already possess at least one firearm known to the state. Basically, it says if someone already legally has a gun in California the state can’t make that person wait 10 days for a second gun just because it wants to. If that sounds like common sense to you, you’re right, but common sense isn’t a given in the courts.
Brandon Combs, a plaintiff in the case who is also director of the executive director of the Calguns Foundation, said the decision clears the way for them to challenge “other irrational and unconstitutional gun-control laws…. We look forward to doing just that.”
A flurry of such challenges began right after Heller, led to McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and are still ongoing. In an important example, in February
2014 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms for self-defense in public. The decision came in Peruta v. San Diego County. The majority opinion in Peruta said, “We are called upon to decide whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
The California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation brought the case on behalf of five individuals who were denied the right to carry a handgun by the San Diego sheriff. According to California law, a person applying for their Second Amendment right to carry a concealed handgun must: (1) be a resident of their respective city or county; (2) be of “good moral character”; (3) have “good cause” for such a license; and (4) pass a firearms training course. Many rural California counties accept self-defense as “good cause” for a person to get a license to carry a handgun, but some urban sheriffs and chiefs of police disagreed. In those jurisdictions the few who attain permits had to beg, plead, and show imminent danger to their lives before they could exercise their right to bear arms.
The Ninth Circuit decided 2 to 1 that the restrictive “good cause” policy of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department was unconstitutional. The majority opinion accepted that “the Second Amendment right is ‘not unlimited.’ It is ‘not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’ Rather, it is a right subject to ‘traditional restrictions,’ which themselves—and this is a critical point—tend ‘to show the scope of the right.’”
The majority decision in Peruta said, “Our reading of the Second Amendment is akin to the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation [in Shepard v. Madigan] … and at odds with the approach of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits…. We are unpersuaded by the decisions of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits for several reasons. First, contrary to the approach in Heller, all three courts declined to undertake a complete historical analysis of the scope and nature of the Second Amendment right outside the home…. As a result, they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense purposes.”
When circuit courts begin calling each other out on constitutional questions like this, the U.S. Supreme Court usually takes a case to settle the dispute. Perhaps, however, the high court is waiting for the fighting to reach a bigger impasse—if so, another federal judge just gave them a big reason to weigh in.
Gun owners are now perplexed with a ruling by U.S. Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake. She based her ruling that Maryland’s 2013 “assault weapons” ban is constitutional on the premise that these particular semiautomatic firearms are “dangerous and unusual.” She can’t be entirely ignorant of the facts, as the plaintiffs did a very thorough job showing how common and popular AR-15s and other such rifles are with U.S. citizens. Instead her politics seems to have clouded her judicial decision. (You can read her decision here.)
In her 47-page decision Judge Blake systematically presented the facts and then judged them, not by the facts, but by her politics. In Heller v. D.C. (2008) the Supreme Court found that “law-abiding, responsible citizens [have the right] to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” By determining that law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, the Supreme Court found that D.C.’s complete ban on handguns, which it said was the class of arms “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose [of self-defense],” infringed on the core principle of the Second Amendment.
Now, in Heller, the Supreme Court also recognized that the right to bear arms is not unlimited—by comparison, neither is the First Amendment’s protections of free speech. What Heller found is that the Second Amendment protects guns that are “in common use” and that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Judge Blake noted all this but then wrote: “First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute 
number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.”
She concluded that “assault weapons” are not used for self defense; are frequently used in mass shootings; are more offensive in nature than their fully-automatic military counterparts; and pose a heightened risk to law enforcement and civilians. For all of this Judge Blake drew on data provided by two anti-gun groups. To her the numbers and substantial data supplied by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and others was inconvenient.
She didn’t care that figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) show that between 1990 and 2012, U.S. manufacturers produced approximately 4,796,400 AR-15-type rifles (what she deemed “assault weapons”) for sale to U.S. citizens. Also during 2012, some 3,415,000 of these semiautomatic rifles were imported into the U.S. for sale to citizens. In Maryland specifically, from 1994 to 2012, there were a total of 604,051 transfers of regulated firearms, of which some 46,577 were so-called “assault weapons.” (I say “so called” because the term can only be defined politically.) This, of course, doesn’t count any private sales of these firearms that have grown so popular most manufacturers had been back ordered for years and are just now starting to meet demand.
Judge Blake then concluded: “Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”
She call’s them “unusual” even though a consumer study done by the NSSF found that about five million Americans own them. Also, results from retail studies show that nationally these semiautomatic firearms make up 20 percent of gun sales. By comparison sales of bolt-action and lever-action rifles made up 14 percent of overall sales.
She doubts they’re used for “lawful purposes” even though an NSSF survey that asked 20,000 gun owners about their AR-type rifles said they top reason they own them is for “recreational target shooting.”
The true American history Judge Blake is clearly evading of is that the AR-15 is merely the latest example of private citizens using and helping to develop a firearm type that is closely related to those used by the military. Every major firearm type used by the U.S. military has also been owned and used by civilians. This goes for lever-action Winchesters, bolt-action Krags, pump-action shotguns from Browning, and the modern AR-15. Anti-gun politicians who’re fond of saying that “weapons of war have no place in civilian hands” are either unaware of American history or are 
dishonest.
Demonizing this category of guns doesn’t even make sense statistically. According to FBI crime statistics, only about 2.5 percent of murders are committed with any type of rifle. AR-15-type rifles make up an even smaller fraction of that percentage. In 2011, for example, almost four times as many murderers used knives (323 used rifles whereas 1,694 used knives or another sharp object in 2011) to kill someone.
Actually, the semiautomatic technology used in the AR-15 was invented in the late 19th century and perfected by civilian gun makers in the early 20th century. Mark A. Keefe IV, editor of American Rifleman, tells me, “What’s really interesting is that from about 1900 to 1940 semiautomatic rifles were more often used by civilians than the U.S. military. It was the civilian market that drove and tweaked semiautomatic rifle designs that made it possible for the M1 Garand.”
It was those guns that led to the development of the AR-15. When, in 1963, the U.S. military finally ordered 85,000 of these rifles (which would soon be dubbed the M16) Colt had already begun selling semiautomatic AR-15s to U.S. consumers.
All that’s just the beginning of the truth about the past, present and future of America’s guns that Judge Blake got wrong, but all the rest is in my just-released book The Future of the Gun.
Gun Confiscation Begins in New York?
http://www.infowars.com/gun-confiscation-begins-in-new-york/
Nassau County man: State Police “just came to my home and took everything”
by Paul Joseph Watson | July 10, 2014
Second amendment activists are expressing concern that authorities in New York state have begun moving towards mass gun confiscation after a man had all his firearms seized by police over a 15-year-old misdemeanor charge.
In a post on the nyfirearms.com forum entitled, “NY State Police Just Came to My Home and Took Everything,” a Nassau County man describes how he received a visit from State Police who wanted to inspect the serial number of a semi-automatic rifle he had just purchased.
“I brought him to my safe, opened it and the 2nd officer went in and took out my cx4, Remington 70 sps and Remington 870 shotgun. Then he says that I had a misdemeanor possession charge 15 years ago and all the guns will be taken,” the man wrote, adding that he was put through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System when he purchased the guns with no issues.
The post elicited a huge response from other forum members who encouraged the man to get a lawyer while advising them that he shouldn’t 
have allowed cops to enter his home without a warrant. Others said the case highlighted how “registration leads to confiscation.”
The man now faces having to get permission from a judge in order to have his firearms returned.
After the passage of the the NY Safe Act back in April, which was described by Governor Andrew Cuomo as the “toughest” gun control law in the United States, less than 10 per cent of residents obeyed by registering their assault-style weapons.
Some Sheriffs publicly stated that they would not order their deputies to enforce the law, while Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb derided the Safe Act as “the worst piece of legislation I have seen in my 14 years as a member of the Assembly.”
Protesters against the measure marked the deadline by shredding their registration cards during a demonstration in upstate New York, arguing that the law merely creates a new class of criminals out of responsible gun owners.
Click on image to see movie trailer and more
The backlash against the NY Safe Act mirrors what happened in Connecticut, where residents were required by law to register high capacity magazines and assault rifles manufactured after 1994, yet just 13% of gun owners complied.
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com
Anti-Gun Liberal Wants to Murder NRA Board Members
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/03/28/antigun-liberal-wants-to-murder-nra-board-members-n1815949/page/full
Michael Schaus | Mar 28, 2014
An anti-gun liberal talk-show host apparently wants to shoot NRA board members. But, before we talk about the precarious possibility of some imbalanced leftist abusing Second Amendment rights (that he fights against) we should get some background information. Georgia has recently passed some legislation (awaiting approval from the Governor) that would expand the state’s Concealed Carry law.
In short, the bill would broaden the locations that lawful concealed carry is permitted. Acceptable locations would be expanded to include churches, schools (Adam Lanza would not only be unwelcome – he’d probably be shot), airports (federal restrictions would still apply), bars (no drinking while carrying, “duh”), and some government offices. The Left has dubbed the bill as the “guns everywhere” bill… Which I really don’t see as a pejorative. In fact, I’m kinda jealous that people in Georgia will have the protected right to defend their life anywhere they go. I’m currently at the mercy of California implants calling themselves “Denver residents” (ugh).
Guns everywhere? (What are the home values like in Georgia?) We should rename this bill to the “Michael Schaus is welcome in Georgia” bill of 2014. The Left’s main objection appears to be that concealed-carry-permit-holders will be allowed in establishments that serve liquor. But, c’mon… We let people leave bars without first confiscating their car keys. It’s still going to be illegal to carry while drinking (again: “duh”), and being intoxicated with a firearm will continue to be a serious crime (not to mention that such actions are the definition of irresponsibility.)
I mean, really: If a designated driver feels like carrying a gun (because they will be sober, and responsible for everyone’s safety), why should they be forced to stand outside smoking cigarettes while their friends are enjoying one of the few perks of adulthood? I know I’d feel safer with a sober concealed carry holder around. In fact, I never go drinking without a designated driver and a concealed carry permit holder. After all: The point is to be safe.
But… Mike Malloy has helped me accept an moderate degree of gun control. And here’s why (hat-tip to NewsBusters):
This organization founded by Gabrielle Giffords, you remember her, the former Arizona congresswoman that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck suggested should be murdered, the one who was critically wounded in a mass shooting in 2011, she calls it ‘the most extreme gun bill in America.’
Whoa… Palin and Beck never asked for anyone to murder Giffords. Palin ran an ad “targeting” Democrats… Malloy, by the way, seems to skim over similar rhetoric employed by the Left. And, allowing law-abiding citizens the right to responsibly carry tools of self-defense isn’t exactly “extreme” when compared to the state of Connecticut confiscating people’s legally purchased firearms. But he went on:
The NRA, which they’re behind this of course, they want guns everywhere. Jesus Christ! I would like to invite one of the NRA board members, and I’ll be armed, let’s just get this over with, OK? Come on down to Georgia and I’ll be packing heat and you be packing heat or whether you want to or not, I don’t give a damn, it’s up to you…
I thought dueling went out of style… It turns out that our Liberal talk-show host, however, has no problem inviting political opponents to engage in dangerous illegal behavior. But, he soon jumped the gun-control shark:
And you come, meet me someplace, and all of a sudden, see, we have stand your ground here, and all of a sudden I’m going to feel real &*%$#@ threatened by you! And I will shoot you! If I feel threatened. The law says I can! Ha ha ha!
So… I think it’s pretty obvious: We should do away with concealed carry – for Liberals. After all, in Malloy’s hypothetical, the armed (or unarmed) NRA member is acting like a responsible, non-threatening, member of society. They are minding their own business. In fact, they carry a firearm as protection against the possibility that some psycho will randomly direct unwarranted violence in their general direction.
And then there’s Malloy… Who unmercifully is willing to do them harm. I don’t really see the NRA guy as the problem in this equation. (And what if the NRA board member was a black guy wearing a hoodie?) It seems to me, that the bigger problem is someone (ahem*Malloy*ahem) who feels justified in shooting someone else because they disagree on politics – which, by the way, is not covered under Georgia’s “stand your ground” law. (Last time I checked, feeling threatened by someone’s Constitutional right is not justification for murder.)
A concealed weapon is a hedge against the very violence that Malloy mockingly advocates. Heck, it’s a hedge against Giffords’ shooter, the Aurora movie theatre monster, and even Adam Lanza… Only a liberal with unbridled hate for dissenting opinions would see it as a tool for intimidation and violence.
So… Let’s pass a gun control law (which is a sentence I never imagined myself typing): “If you think guns are the incarnation or manifestation of unrepentant violence, you’re not allowed to purchase one.” Everyone else, on the other hand, should be able to carry everywhere they want (because, as it turns out, some of those Malloy-style psychopaths may not abide by the newly proposed SchausGunControlAct).
PS: I didn’t address the concept of guns in church… But that’s because I think it’s self-explanatory: My life is a gift from God. I’d like to think that he would approve of me defending it.
Mom with Rife Protects Children from Thugs
http://eaglerising.com/4783/mom-rife-protects-children-thugs/#mWiO02ZDdppOTjDZ.99
By Onan Coca / 21 February 2014
When a Democrat tries to tell you that a long gun doesn’t work well for home protection – you should just direct them back to this page.
While a shotgun or handgun may be preferred for personal self-defense, sometimes you just don’t have the luxury of access to the perfect protection. A mom in Detroit recently proved that any defense in time of crisis is better than no defense when she used her rifle to defend her home from three teen thugs who kicked in her front door in the middle of the night.
The woman was home with her two children and she had two options – be defenseless and hope the evil men at her door would not hurt her or her children, or defend her home with her gun in an effort to keep her kids safe. She chose right.
The police apprehended the three thugs after the break-in, but notice the chain of events. Criminals break down the door, woman defends home, criminals flee, woman calls police, police apprehend criminals.
There is no time for this to play out in the victims favor any other way. The police exist to capture lawbreakers so that the courts can mete out justice for crime, not to prevent crime from happening… though we hope that justice will provide incentive to stop crime. If the woman had used her time to call the police instead of getting her gun, she and her kids may have been dead by the time police arrived.
Go for your gun first – then call the police.
About the author: Onan Coca
amp;lt;img alt=” src=’http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/067e140671164d7ce10eea5e42f2e3b6?s=80&d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G’ class=’avatar avatar-80 photo’ height=’80’ width=’80’ />
Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA.
Website: http://www.eaglerising.com
Read more at http://eaglerising.com/4783/mom-rife-protects-children-thugs/#AAcZrOKxKeVAUG6u.99
Please watch this video and let its’ message sink in…and Remember it! Very, very impressive
“Guns are a lot like parachutes If you need one and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again”
This is the best presentation on gun control yet. Even if you don’t like guns, watch this! Should be required viewing by both sides of the issue of gun control/legislation. Although this is a spoof (The Virtual President) this man knows the constitution. Watch the faces on some Senators in the audience.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_T-F_zfoDqI?rel=0
John Kerry Signs UN Small Arms Treaty – Freedom Outpost
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/john-kerry-will-sign-un-small-arms-treaty-wednesday/
By Tim Brown
*The article’s title has also been updated to reflect the verification of Kerry’s signature of the treaty. It was formerly titled “John Kerry will Sign UN Small Arms Treaty Wednesday.”
We were told that Barack Obama would more than likely sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty in August, during Congress’ recess. That failed to materialize. However, here we are near the end of September and word came out yesterday that Secretary of State John Kerry will be placing his signature to the treaty on Wednesday.
The Associated Press reports:
American officials say Secretary of State John Kerry will sign a landmark treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar global arms trade during the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting this week.
The officials said Kerry will sign the Arms Trade Treaty on Wednesday, initiating an uncertain ratification process in the U.S. Senate. Some lawmakers have expressed strong opposition to the United States becoming a party to the treaty. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be identified as the source of information about Kerry’s plans.
The U.S. is the world’s largest arms dealer and its accession is seen as critical to the treaty’s success, although many of the world’s other top arms exporters and importers have not signed the document.
This document has been long feared by pro-gun groups and individuals as an end run around the Second Amendment. I have even questioned if it gives foreign troops the authority to enforce the treaty on US soil.
Freedom Outpost’s Lorri Anderson also produced a document, which many believe is authentic, that could very well be a disarmament plan for America by the United Nations.
As a result of fear that this treaty could open the US gun market to international regulation, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gotlieb wrote:
The uncertainty begins in the discussion of small arms. Where will the regulations on our small arms start, and where will they stop? They are even trying to include ammunition regulations in the Arms Trade Treaty! Will the United Nations try to impose international licensing requirements, an international registry, or international?
The last negotiations for an Arms Trade Treaty took place in July 2012, just four months before the Presidential election. Obama did not want to take a big stance for global gun control just months before his re-election but now he has made it clear he is for total gun control. He also told voters he would not be re-visiting negotiations for an Arms Trade treaty but here we are.
Since his re-election it has become clearer than ever what is at the top of his agenda; taking our guns away! The Obama Administration has been exploiting tragedies since the election to push gun control at the city, state, federal, and now GLOBAL level.
Our Senate took a stance before the Presidential election when 51 of them wrote Obama a letter saying they would not support an Arms Trade Treaty. We must let our entire U.S. Senate know we do not support international gun control. They must not ratify this international treaty.
Kerry’s signature doesn’t actually put the treaty into effect. It must also be ratified by 2/3 majority vote in the United States Senate. However, remember that back in March the Senate voted 53-46 to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The same Senate went on to defeat the tyrannical gun control legislation of the Obama administration and the Democrats.
The dangerous part of Kerry signing the treaty is that it will lie dormant in committee until there is a majority that will ratify it, or a future president, in essence, “unsigns” the treaty.
Additionally, it only takes ¾majority vote of member nations to amend the treaty. This means that once it is ratified other nations could determine how it could be amended, and that would also affect the United States.
Currently, the treaty does not seem to regulate gun ownership in the US. However, it could immediately affect the availability and cost of foreign made guns and ammo if it is ratified.
The treat also requires that 50 member nations sign and ratify it for it to take effect.
UPDATE: John Kerry has signed the treaty. This just in from Fox News:
Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.
“This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong,” he said. “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”
The NRA also reacted to the signing, calling it a threat to “individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme” and saying the organization would fight against these “blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American.”
The NRA also added:
Notably, the ATT includes “small arms and light weapons” within its scope, which covers firearms owned by law-abiding citizens. Further, the treaty urges recordkeeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including “end use or end user documentation” for a “minimum of ten years.” Each country is to “take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms.” Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.
About the author, Tim Brown:
Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty. Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina.
SENATE WEBSITE GETS SECOND AMENDMENT WRONG
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/25/Senate-Website-Gets-Second-Amendment-Wrong
A Senate.gov web page covering the Constitution gets the scope of the Second Amendment wrong, telling readers that it is not clear whether the amendment protects an individual right or a collective right.
Here is what the Senate’s web page on the Constitution says about the Second Amendment: “Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”
This is simply not true on at least two levels.
Number one, the scope of the Second Amendment has not been seriously questioned until Alisky-minded radicals isolated it from among the other amendments in the Bill of Rights and began attacking it. Before that it was taken for granted that the scope of the Second Amendment was the same as the scope of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and so on.
Remember, the Bill of Rights protects individual, “unalienable rights” with which we were “endowed” by our Creator.
Secondly, and confirming these things, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right twice in the last five years.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) they ruled: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Associate Justice Samuel Alito referenced the Heller decision to make the same point in a different but equally clear manner: “In Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”
How is that Wikipedia has incorporated the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right but a U.S. Senate website has not?
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins
Veteran Has His AR-15 Confiscated By Police For Fending Off Burglar
Medford, Oregon — This story is so outrageous that it’s almost beyond belief. How can the police confiscate the weapon of a crime victim who did nothing wrong?
An Oregon man has had his rifle confiscated and is facing criminal charges after he attempted to stop a wanted felon from breaking into his home by firing a warning shot.
…Authorities say 40-year-old Jonathon Kinsella, a wanted felon, was attempting to flee the scene when he was arrested on outstanding warrants, including for burglary and assault.
…Military veteran Corey Thompson, 36, told KDRV-TV that the wanted felon was trying to beak into his home via the back door. Defending his property, Thompson said he warned the criminal that he was armed and he was giving him his one and only warning shot.
“This is the end result. You break into someone’s house, there’s consequences,” Thompson said.
Wielding his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, the veteran made good on his threat and fired one warning shot. The bullet did not strike the suspect or anyone else.
…However, police later determined he wasn’t justified in firing his weapon. Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”
Apparently, for police in Medford, a wanted felon trying to break into a law-abiding citizen’s home isn’t enough to justify a warning shot.
Thompson was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, menacing and reckless endangering. The veteran’s AR-15 was seized by police because they claim it was used in the commission of a crime.
Does this felon have to be stabbing Thompson in the throat before he’s allowed to fire a warning shot? This should not be allowed to stand. The behavior of this police department is outrageous and completely disgraceful. Everybody involved in this decision at the Medford Police Department should be sued, fired and even more importantly, Corey Thompson should be cleared of all charges and given his AR-15 back immediately.
Written by John Hawkins of RightWingNews.com
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.