Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Second Amendment’

Some Facts You Might Need to Defeat Liberals in This Gun Debate


second amendment

Thanks to yet another monster abusing firearms, liberals are again at it and trying to undermine our Second Amendment rights.

Americans innately understand why having the right to bear arms is a good idea, but all too often many lack the historical information and background facts to help them fully understand and argue in favor of those rights. With this I hope to help arm Americans with some of that information they may be missing.

Sadly, there is a consensus among the left-wing and their handmaidens among the media elites that the “right to bear arms” does not really mean we have a right to bear arms. But the truth is, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the founders and their immediate successors in American politics did assume just such a right. The fact is, firearms are not a national plague and the founders did not make an error in focusing on our rights to self-protection.

Of course we all have heard the nonsense that our rights are outdated, or that the founders never meant for them to be taken as individual rights. But, we can go back to the writings of our founders to see what they really meant. What they wrote to each other, in newspapers, and in other statements as they started our country reveals exactly what they meant. The founders spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about the rights of man in the early days and this thinking influenced the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the various commentaries on jurisprudence. These ideas and principles directly affect the meaning of the Second Amendment.

A book called Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws, for instance, was a huge influence on the founders and this is what that important treatise on the law said on arms ownership:

“The right of the citizens that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense.” and ” This is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain violence of oppression” and again “To vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the citizens are entitled … to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.”

Blackstone’s commentaries were accepted as fact by our founders, not mere theory. So, it is clear that what the founders had in mind was that self-preservation and defense was a natural right to be protected by the laws and the U.S. Constitution they were crafting. To put a finer point on this, looking at one founder in particular, James Wilson, is instructive.

James Wilson was one of only 6 founders who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, he was one of the nation’s first great Jurists, and after an appointment by George Washington, he was one of the first members of the Supreme Court. He spoke on the floor of the Constitutional Convention 168 times and was one of the most active politicians of his day. Mr. Wilson taught his laws students that the rights secured by the Constitution did not create new rights, but simply reaffirmed old ones.

He said that our documents were meant… “to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights to… which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator.”

Wilson wasn’t alone in his thoughts on rights. Thomas Jefferson also viewed our Constitution and principles similarly, saying: “Government is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us.” John Adams stated that, “Rights are antecedent to all earthly government; Rights… cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights are derived from the great Legislator of the universe.”

So, what did some of the founders say about firearms specifically now that we have the principles of self-preservation established? Here are a few quotes that you can use:

“The right … of bearing arms… is declared to be inherent in the people.”
Fisher Ames, one of the framers of the 2nd Amendment in the first congress

“The great object is that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience that, necessary as it is to have arms, … it is still far from being the case?”
-Patrick Henry

“And what country can preserve its liberties if its rules are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”
-Richard Henry Lee

“The advantage of being armed is an advantage which the Americans posses over the people of almost every other nation … the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
-James Madison

“A free people ought … to be armed.”
-George Washington

With that established, we can move on to another historical fact liberals abuse so that they can undermine our individual right to own arms. That is the famous “well-regulated militia” line in the Second Amendment. Liberals like to say that “militia” could only mean a standing military organization like the U.S. Army or the various state guard organizations. But that isn’t what the founders meant. The founders meant the militia to be we, the people. Each of us individually is “the militia.”

So, what is this militia? Try these quotes on that topic:

“The militia are the people at large.”
-Tench Coxe Attny. Gen. of Penn. and Asst. Sec of Treasury under Washington

“Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
-George Mason

“The militia is composed of free citizens.”
-Samuel Adams

“A militia… are in fact the people themselves.”
-Richard Henry Lee

Indeed, the first federal law passed concerning just who a militia member might be, the Militia Act of 1792, states that the “militia of the United States” consists of every adult male in the country. Under that act each adult male was required by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition. In fact, the current law still states, “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 and under 45 years of age.”United States code, title 10 par., 311(a)

That means the “militia” is a description of individuals, not a group.

Additionally, in those days the words “well regulated” only meant orderly. Liberals say “well regulated” invites government regulations. But in that time, It didn’t mean anything like organized “under the law” or under the government. It just meant that the individuals in the militias would be in order and well trained.

Many also claim that “common sense” (and by that they mean gun banning) is a “health issue.” They say that costs are a public issue. But, the proclaimed overwhelming costs of treating gun victims in the country’s health care industry is greatly exaggerated. In an article published in the JMAG in the June 1995 issue, estimates appeared that show health care industry costs for such treatment amounts to about $1.5 billion. That added up to only 0.2 percent of total annual health care expenditures nation wide at the time. You may have seen crazy numbers like $20 to $30 billion is incurred for gun shot victims (most of whom are criminals), but this number assumes a very high lifetime earning rate loss for the victims of gun violence which are added in as a “loss” to the country. Such high lifetime earning estimates assumes that these criminals will suddenly slap their heads, realize the error of their ways and jump into a high paying job market out of the clear blue sky.

Finally, the work of Prof. Gary Kleck and Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research has shown that between 25 and 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost to guns. So medical costs saved by guns in the hands of citizens who use them legally and for protection are 15 times greater than costs incurred by the criminal use of firearms.

So, there you have it. Just a few facts, quotes, and passages that might help you argue in favor of our Second Amendment.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Warner Todd Huston

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and BigJournalsim.com along with all Breitbart News sites, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, and many, many others. He has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs across the country to discuss his news stories and current events and has appeared on TV networks such as CNN, Fox News, Fox Business Network, and various Chicago-based news programs. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com

More Politically INCORRECT Carftoons for Tuesday November 7, 2017


School Wants to Implement New Class That Will Have ALL The Liberals Crying — Do You LOVE This?


waving flagdisclaimerPosted by GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com

| on April 12, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/school-wants-implement-new-class-will-liberals-crying-love/

Liberals say that one reason for banning firearms is because of the accidents that happen every year involving them. We know that some education can cut those numbers astronomically.

And one state is taking the steps to do just that.

A new piece of legislation introduced in North Carolina will give high school students one more class to take: firearms education.

House Bill 612, filed this week by Representative Jay Adams, would give the state room to develop a firearms education course and allow the class, which would include “firearms safety education as recommend by law enforcement agencies or a firearms association”, to be offered as an elective to high school students.

The course, which would be developed by the North Carolina Board of Education, would not allow live ammunition in the classroom and would also cover the history and mechanics of firearms with a firm emphasis on the importance of gun safety.

Bearing Arms

This class would have something for everyone. Each student likes a certain subject, this class would not only cover safety but also teach students about the math, history and science of guns.

That’s a a lot of subjects in one class. It should keep students pretty engaged.

The bill seems to be getting a lot of positive feedback.

“I think education, first and foremost, is essential, before actually obtaining a firearm,” Allen Shaw said.

“If they have the opportunity to buy, they should have the opportunity to be educated. We’ve got too many people out there right now that are wanting to buy guns that don’t have any background with them.”

“Gives the kids a chance to learn how to work them,” said Danny Davis.

“It would be a very beneficial course,” said Tres Cobb, a gun owner and full supporter of the bill.absolutely

screen-shot-2017-04-12-at-6-17-56-pm

Of course, this hasn’t come without criticism from individuals who feel the course would encourage students to become shooters…

“I don’t even see the point in that,” Jenny Rorie said“I don’t think they should, there’s enough violence going on without them doing that.”

“I think it would hurt and help. It’s kind of like a catch-22,” said Tanica Wilkerson.

“I think high school is a little early. I think some of those kids are not ready for that type of environment, to be exposed to something like that. I don’t feel like they’re mature enough.”

Under federal law, citizens under the age of 21 can’t purchase handguns, but 18 year-olds can purchase shotguns or rifles. These are the types of guns that would be part of the proposed high school course.

The bill says live ammunition won’t be allowed in class, but it doesn’t say whether guns can be present.

While adults argue over this bill, 6-year-old Evelyn had some of the best insight:

“If you see someone around you with a gun, you need to know how to handle it.”amen

Her parents did not give their opinion on the bill but did say teaching kids how to properly handle a firearm was an important lesson.

The bill has passed its first reading in the house. It’s now on its way to the House Committee on Education for debate. If passed, it will take effect at the start of the 2017-2018 school year.

‘Circuits’ or ‘Circuses’? Here’s why we desperately need judicial reform at the circuit court level


Clown judge / Ken Cook | Shutterstock

With Supreme Court decisions erroneously regarded as the supreme law of the land instead of the Constitution, everyone on the Right is clamoring to ensure that Trump makes the best Supreme Court pick(s) possible. But given that well under one percent of all federal civil and criminal cases make it to the Supreme Court, decisions coming out of the 13 federal courts of appeals ostensibly (and again, erroneously) serve as “the law of the land” for many critical social and political issues, as we so painfully witnessed with last week’s “9th Circus” ruling.

That is why it is at least as an important to fill the federal circuits with originalist’ as it is for the Supreme Court. However, if Trump is going to leave his mark on the judiciary, that would require taking bold measures to overturn established traditions so that each appeals court nominee would be more in the mold of Clarence Thomas than even a Neil Gorsuch, much less a John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy.

Why the U.S. Court of Appeals is so vital

For those paying attention to how a mere district judge in one bad circuit can violate the national sovereignty, you need no tutorial on the importance of the lower courts.

In 2015, 54,244 cases were filed in the 12 regional courts of appeals (not including the specialized appeals court for the Federal Circuit) out of a total of 361,689 that began at the district level. At the same time, only about 80 cases were granted full review by the Supreme Court. In other words, the federal courts of appeals are ostensibly the court of last resort for most federal cases. And given that the Left has successfully redefined the Constitution, almost every political issue has become a federal case.partyof-deceit-spin-and-lies

Even though many of the major cases broadly affecting public policy are granted review by the high court, many languish in the lower courts for years and never make it to the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Supreme Court is clearly influenced by the jurisprudential momentum of the lower courts. Given that most of the circuits are full of post-constitutionalists who make Anthony Kennedy look like James Madison, it creates a peer pressure in the legal community to move away from the Constitution as written.

Keep in mind that most of the major cases of consequence pending before the Supreme Court have been appealed by conservatives because of bad lower court decisions.

Remember, gay marriage didn’t happen in a vacuum with the Obergefell case. Almost every district court and all but one of the circuits redefined marriage in one of the most anti-constitutional opinions of all time. We are witnessing a similar trend with lower courts chipping away at the “plenary power doctrine” on immigration in recent years.

Furthermore, justices will rarely take up a case expeditiously when there is no split decision among at least two circuit courts. Given that the lower courts are in such bad shape — with such a dearth of originalist — conservatives can rarely win in even one circuit on such bedrock issues as voter ID, religious conscience, and an array of immigration issues. The lower courts tee up the contours and the dynamics of the cases that reach the high court. Therefore, if we fail to change the personnel and the procedures of the lower courts, another two solid originalist on the Supreme Court (assuming one of the liberals dies or resigns from office) would have only a limited effect.

Keep in mind that most of the major cases of consequence pending before the Supreme Court have been appealed by conservatives because of bad lower court decisions. The tyranny begins and usually ends in the circuits. Given that Republicans have control of the federal government and most state governments, we will only be playing defense in the lower courts because that is where the Left will plant their flag, even more so than during the Obama era.

Where the circuits stand: An anti-constitutional circus

It’s not just the 9th Circus.9th-circus-court2

You could probably count on your fingers the number of true originalist (à la Clarence Thomas) on the circuit courts. While it’s arduous to game out the “ideology” of each judge and circuit, here is my preliminary attempt at an overview of the circuits.

First, we will begin with this infographic detailing the number of Republican appointees and Democrat appointees by circuit among active judges (not including semi-retired “senior judges”). The graphic also shows the strong influence of Obama’s eight years on the appeals courts and the immediate vacancies that can be filled by Trump.

U.S. Court of Appeals Judges

A few observations stand out.

1. Among active judges, Democrats now have an outright majority on nine of the 13 circuits.

And as we will explain in a moment, the courts are in worse shape than this topline number would suggest because almost every Democrat-appointee is a post-constitutionalist while only half the GOP-appointees are conservatives and only relatively small number are true originalist. Just consider how two GOP-appointed judges were already involved in the immigration ruling, one of the most radical and harmful decisions of all-time.

2. There are 20 vacancies that Trump can and should fill immediately.

But Obama’s presidency was so strategic that it will take a long time to swing back a single circuit. Only 10 of those 20 are Democrat vacancies that would tilt the balance of a seat and most are not in circuits that will fundamentally alter the balance of most three-judge panels.

3. The all-important D.C. Circuit is now 7-4 majority Democrat appointees, with four judges appointed by Obama alone.

The D.C. Circuit is the second most influential court in the land on constitutional issues. Worse, while there are some solid senior judges, Janice Rogers Brown is the only real originalist left among the active judges, with Brett Kavanaugh a mostly reliable conservative. The D.C. Circuit is going to be a dumpster fire for the indefinite future. Moreover, if you drill down into the district level, the District Court for the District of Columbia has an 11-0 Democrat majority among active judges!

Does Congress not realize it has the complete power to rein in rogue courts?

By the middle of the year, when all the current vacancies take effect, there will be 90 Democrat appointees, 69 GOP appointees, and 20 vacancies among active seats on the appeals courts. However, the circuit courts are really in much worse shape than even the top line numbers would suggest.

Remember, almost all of the cases in the appeals courts are decided by a randomly selected three-judge panel, which also includes the senior judges (although their caseload is reduced in varying degrees). While it is possible to request a full en banc review of a case by the full circuit, those reviews are relatively rare in most circuits. Due to the clear Democrat majority on nine of the circuits and the lack of originalist on most of those panels, the legal Left is almost always assured a favorable panel for whatever they are looking to do: redefine marriage, infringe upon religious liberty, throw out abortion regulations, block photo ID, etc.

On the other hand, we’d be lucky to find 15 originalist on the appeals courts who are every bit as conservative as the 90 Democrat appointees — and a number of Republican appointees — are liberal.

Now let’s take a look at the four circuits where there is a supposed GOP majority:

7th Circuit

This is the easiest one to game out. The 6-3 GOP majority is extremely deceiving. This circuit is home to the infamous Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee who quite literally believes that the Constitution as adopted is outdated and should be disregarded. He wrote the 7th Circuit’s tyrannical gay marriage opinion, among many other bad decisions.

Only two of the nine active judges can be considered reliable originalist across the board: Michael Kanne and Dianne Sykes. While many conservative legal theorists have respected Frank Easterbrook for many years, he has shown that he doesn’t believe in an individual right to bear arms. The rest of the Republican appointees range from progressive to unreliable. Thus liberals can pretty much rely on a favorable three-judge panel for almost anything they want.not-okay

6th Circuit

The 9-5 majority of GOP appointees is very misleading if one thinks this is an originalist-dominated circuit.

First, Judge Helene White, although appointed by Bush, is really a liberal Democrat who was selected by Michigan’s two Democrat senators as part of a deal. Jeffrey Sutton, another W appointee, wrote the court’s opinion upholding Obamacare. Out of the seven remaining GOP appointees, only Alice Batchelder could be counted among the most reliable originalist with a few others leaning conservative, such as Raymond Kethledge. Another conservative, Danny Boggs, just retired, so at best his vacancy will be a wash.

Thus, between the liberal active judges and a number of other liberal senior judges in this circuit, it’s hit or miss for conservatives in terms of getting a reliable three-judge panel. In fact, the far Left recently got a three-judge panel to say that transgenderism is settled law and helped promote Jill Stein’s crazy recount in Michigan!

5th and 8th Circuits

The only two circuits that could remotely be considered conservative are the 5th and 8th circuits. However, even the fifth is not as good as its numbers would suggest. The panel certainly has its share of solid judges, with Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, Jennifer Elrod, and Jerry Smith. But last year, conservatives couldn’t even get voter ID past the full panel because a few GOP appointees joined with the Left.

The 8th Circuit is probably the best panel in the country. However, that makes the three vacancies on the court somewhat moot because they’d be better served on other courts.

The balance of power will not shift very soon

As you can see, although there is much hype surrounding the more than 100 vacancies on the court, they will not swing the balance in terms of the circuits. Only 20 of the vacancies are on appeals courts, of which only 10 are Democrat seats, and many of them are on circuits that are irremediably broken or on the 8th Circuit, which is already good.

Want to take back our sovereignty? Start by breaking up the Ninth Circuit

Moreover, the prognosis for the future is grim. Many Democrat judges will view Trump as anathema that they will not retire under his watch. A quick glance at the vacancy list shows that all five of the circuit court judges who retired since Trump won the election were Republican, as were most of the district court retirees. Thus the trend is not indicative of a host of opportunities to flip the balance of the circuits. Which is one more reason why we need wholesale judicial reform in addition to filling vacancies.

Trump must act soon to fill vacancies and demand originalist in the mold of Thomas

Nonetheless, it is important that Trump not wait the traditional six months or so to start the process of filling lower court vacancies. While I don’t believe it will fundamentally alter the balance of the courts, the better judges who are in the circuits make it more likely we will get lucky and have a decent three-judge panel for random, important cases.

However, if Trump is to make his appointments meaningful, he would have to depart from longstanding tradition that gives home state senators major input on nominees and allows them to potentially scuttle the nomination.

One of the reasons why we have many liberal judges from Republican presidents — such as Judge Robart, a W appointee — is because Democrat senators can “blue slip” any nominee from their state they dislike. Under Senate tradition, the Judiciary Committee will refuse to hold a hearing on any nominee that is officially opposed by the home state senators. This is why it’s so hard to get even a marginally conservative judge approved from blue states, much less someone in the mold of Clarence Thomas.

Even in red states with two GOP senators, the judicial nominees often reflect a legal mirror image of their political views, which are moderate at best. And in states with senators from opposing parties, Republicans have often cut deals to approve only those nominees who are acceptable to their home state Democrat senator.

The problem of home state RINOS and Democrats is further exacerbated by the fact that tradition tends to kick-em-out-of-officebind the president to maintaining state continuity in seats within a circuit court. According to CRS, just 13 percent of circuit court appointments since the Kennedy administration have changed state representation from the vacant seat. And it is downright mandated by law that every state has at least one judge on the given circuit court and that every nominee must at least reside within the circuit at the time of the appointment.

Trump would have to expend as much political capital trying to ‘appoint better judges’ in a meaningful way as he would by pursuing judicial reform.

Consequently, if a president wants to fill a vacant seat from a state with a Democrat senator, he would be constrained by tradition from filling it with someone from a state with two Republicans, thereby avoiding a blue slip problem.

To begin with, it’s so hard to find Clarence Thomases in this profession. The limitation of state allocation rules and blue slip obstruction are killers. This is why despite swearing every time we will do a better job “appointing better judges,” we wind up with more Kennedys and Roberts on the lower courts. It’s also why outside of the geographical areas of the fifth and eighth circuits, it’s hard to appoint a string of reliable conservatives. There are three vacancies from the 3rd Circuit, for example, but it will be very hard to fill them with originalist given the geographical problem.

As such, Trump would have to expend as much political capital trying to “appoint better judges” in a meaningful way as he would by pursuing judicial reform. Yet the latter would actually solve the problem in the long run.

It’s quite evident that we still need judicial reform, but in the meantime Trump would be wise to fill the vacancies aggressively on circuit courts and make it clear to Senate Republicans that they are to promote originalist with the same gusto that Obama used to confirm anti-constitutionalists.

horowitz conservative conscience

Will the Church Come Alive in 2017?


waving flagAuthored By: Walker Wildmon / Posted: Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Walker Wildmon Assistant to the President FollowMore Articles

While there is much work to be done in order to bring spiritual revival to America, I believe an awakening Church is the first step in this endeavor.

– Walker Wildmon

Most of us have ideas about how we’d like 2017 to look. Some would like to study Scripture on a more frequent basis.  Others would like to spend more time with their spouse or kids and some would like to improve their physical wellness by exercising. These are all great goals some of which I might actually be participating in myself. In general, I’d like to see myself become a better steward of my spiritual and physical well-being.

Along with these goals, I also have things that I’d like to see the Church in America move towards and see our country fulfill when it comes to public policy.

For years it has seemed as though the Church in general has been asleep. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of vibrant churches across this great land. For the past several decades a war has been fought over the forced acceptance of homosexuality and abortion. Since the dawn of creation God’s people have viewed all forms of sexual deviancy and the murder of innocent life as two horrific sins that cannot be accepted in the public square, much less in our churches. Christians have been in the cross hairs of this agenda and in return it has caused some to shrink back in order to avoid public shaming. I do not blame the world for our passiveness but I place the blame solely on the Church’s shoulders. The Bible mentions over and over again that we will face trials and difficulties because of our faith and that we must not grow weary (Galatians 6). I’m hopeful that the Church in America will come alive spiritually in the near future and become more engaged in making disciples (Romans 13).AMEN

Along with the Church coming alive spiritually, I’m hopeful that believers will activate themselves in the public policy arena to see laws passed which reflect constitutional, and more importantly, biblical principles. Some policies that come to mind regard abortion, school choice and religious freedom.

life-begins-at-conception

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

Abortion, while unconstitutional and barbaric has been legal since 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled on the well-known Roe v. Wade case. Simply because it is legal according to the Supreme Court and has been so for over forty years doesn’t mean we can’t fight to end abortion and save countless babies. Currently, the Supreme Court is split 4-4 between liberal and conservative justices but all it takes is President Trump appointing pro-life justices to one or two present and future vacancies on the high court to give us a pro-life constitutional majority. Assuming this occurs, Americans have a strong chance of seeing Roe v. Wade overturned and in return granting states the sole authority to regulate or outlaw abortion. In the meantime, Americans can pressure their congressmen and women and their senators to defund the largest abortion provider in the United States. Planned Parenthood and its affiliates perform more than 300,000 abortions per year, which amounts to approximately one out of every three in the country according to a Heritage Foundation report. The American Family Association issued a call to action recently which equips you with the proper tools to see that this organization receives no more taxpayer subsidies. Click here to take action.AMEN

School choice is a fairly simple issue. Families shouldn’t be stuck in a failing school system simply because of their zip code. If the federal government will remove itself from local education and allow states to enact school voucher policies, families will have more opportunities to excel in education. A voucher program will also create necessary competition between schools and districts that will almost instantly raise the bar higher, which will in turn improve the educational quality for our children. Taking a free market approach to schooling is necessary if we expect our schools and students to thrive. The Daily Signal published a great article titled “Education Made Simple: What is School Choice?”AMEN

Lastly, it is time for the marginalization of Christians by government officials and offices to end. Over the past eight years we’ve had florist, bakers, and pastors driven out of their occupation or even placed in jail (Kim Davis) for their beliefs. Members of congress have proposed legislation called the First Amendment Defense Act or FADA that “Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” In essence, this would put an end to federal judges and local courts forcing people of faith to either compromise their religious beliefs or face government sanctioned fees and penalties.AMEN

If the Church in America will awaken spiritually and become engaged, not only in the local church but also in the public arena, we could see some positive changes take place in America in the near future. Changes such as defunding Planned Parenthood, allowing school choice and advancing religious liberty will surely lift the weight of spiritual darkness that has covered this land for the past several decades. While there is much work to be done in order to bring spiritual revival to America, I believe an awakening Church is the first step in this endeavor.AMEN

LIVES SAVED: These CIVILIANS Were HEROS — Here’s Why The Second Amendment MATTERS


waving flagWritten by Rob Morse on January 7, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2017/01/lives-saved-civilians-heros-heres-second-amendment-matters/

They had seconds to save lives. Fortunately, these private citizens were armed. Many lives were at risk and these ordinary people did extraordinary things. They stopped mass murder. All of these examples are from December.

Our first story was in a crowded nail salon. It was the holiday season and the salon was crowded. They had with 10 employees and many customers in the shop that night.

Two armed robbers entered the store. The robbers presented their firearms. They shouted threats at the store employees and their customers. The robbers waved their guns and demanded money and valuables.

One of the store employees was armed. The armed citizen shot one of the robbers. Both robbers ran. One robber drove away and left his wounded accomplice in a stand of trees. Police captured the robber and found his gun. Police are looking for his accomplice. Neither the store employees nor their customers were injured.

Our second story happened in a convenience store. The store clerk saw two men walk into his store at 3:30 in the morning. Even at that early hour on a weekday, there were five people playing video games in the back of the store. The two men who walked in were wearing masks and carrying guns. The clerk ran to the back office behind the counter. The office had a solid door, but the robbers were right behind him. The clerk tried to close the door as the robbers struggled to push it open.

The clerk reached around the door and shot the closest robber. The robbers fired back as they ran. Neither the clerk or his customers were hurt.

Our third story took place in a pawn shop. The store owner and his employee had opened the store only a few minutes earlier. They already had two customers in the shop. Two more men entered, but these men were wearing ski-masks and carrying guns.

The robbers yelled, “Get down on the floor. Get down on the floor or I’ll kill you.”

Then the robber fired his gun. The owner drew his firearm and shot one of the robbers. The second robber ran.

The store owner said he hated to kill another man. The other store employee and the two customers were uninjured.

You saved many lives in December. You save lives every day. Thank you, and carry on.

WANT TO LOSE YOUR GUNS? Here’s How ‘President Hillary’ Will Help You Do That


waving flagPosted on August 19, 2016

hillary and guns

Hey LeftistBearing Arms editor Bob Owens outlines how Hillary will destroy your gun rights, and she can do it without repealing the second amendment.

Don’t let freedom be taken from you, get the word out so we can take down Hillary this November.

By Bob Owens

Hillary Clinton is running the first presidential campaign in the history of the United States based explicitly on the gutting of a core Constitutional and human right.

Clinton has made attacking the human right of self-defense a key part of her 2016 campaign, and if she’s elected—and down-ballot Democrats manage to take control of the Senate and/or House—she’s poised to be able to destroy the gun rights of American citizens in three distinct ways.

  • Place progressive, anti-gun justices on the Supreme Court
  • Pass bans on a wide range of common firearms
  • repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

Stacking the Supreme Court With Anti-Gun Justicescropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

There is already one opening on the U.S. Supreme Court following the death of textualist Justice Antonin Scalia, and there are likely to be more justices who either retire, or simply pass on due their advanced ages in the next four years.

Progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. Moderate Anthony Kennedy is 80. Liberal-moderate Stephen Breyer is 78.

The next President will appoint a replacement for Scalia, and there has been some terrifying speculation on who that may be.

If the next President is Clinton, and Democrats manage to win control of the Senate in a “wave” election, there’s a good chance that she’s not only be able to appoint a left-leaning justice, but one with radical progressive ideology. Two of the other three elderly justices (Ginsburg, Breyer)  may also retire if Clinton were to take office, to be replaced by much younger and more radicalized justices. I don’t think Justice Kennedy would chose to retire under Clinton, but at 80 years old, health issues forcing retirement, or simply death, are always a possibility.

If Clinton wins, she will appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice, and plausibly as many as four. This would assure a dramatic leftward shift in the court. While it is unlikely that a “Clinton Court” will directly challenge Heller, they will almost certainly decide whether the many state and local “assault weapon” bans weaving their way through lower courts are indeed constitutional. This ties in directly to the next threat of a Clinton presidency.

Banning A Wide Range Of Popular Firearms & AccessoriesCriminals and Dictators

Clinton’s radicalized rhetoric has championed both bans on what she calls “weapons of war,” and the “Australian model” of gun buybacks under the threat of government force.

Actual “weapons of war”—machine guns and selective-fire firearms—have not been manufactured for the civilian market for 30 years, and cannot be, due to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA).

Yes, you heard that correctly. Despite serial lies by Democrats and the mainstream media, actual military rifles are not manufactured for the American market and haven’t been on over a generation.

What Clinton actually wants to ban are the most common firearms sold in the United States. This includes common hunting rifles, target rifles, many popular handguns, standard rifle and pistol magazines, and—if Clinton follows Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’sderanged lead, could result in the majority of firearms designed in the past 100 years being banned.

The threat of new federal gun laws is even more pronounced if gun owners unhappy with their choice of Presidential candidates, opt to sit the 2016 elections out entirely, and Democrats manage to gain seats in the House and Senate, or even win majorities outright.

Dismantling the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms ActArmed

Hillary Clinton has made it clear that her “death blow” against the Second Amendment won’t be an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment directly, but to instead drive the gun industry itself out of business.

The weapon she has chosen to attack you human right to self defense is the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA. Clinton has attacked PLCAA repeatedly on the campaign trail, and—lying about it shamelessly—claiming that it grants the firearms industry “immunity” from lawsuits. This claim is entirely false, which Clinton well knows. PLCAA does one thing, and one thing only: it protects the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits filed by gun control supporters looking to bankrupt gun dealers and gun companies.

burke Giant Government Compliance Officer 20 ban Citizen Control DHS targets Down-by-Lib-600-CI email01 email10 gun free zone hitler IF Orlando-FL-Pol-600 same or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: