Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Basically the new policy is:
“The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as inside a car trunk. But in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge if the person has a concealed weapon permit and if state law also allows concealed firearms.”
This is not some “radical” policy – it’s simply bringing Federal regulations in line with state laws, yet that’s “too much” for the Brady Bunch – they apparently won’t be satisfied until someone has rounded up every firearm in the U.S. The court case will bear watching, and I’ll post more information as it comes in.
Until next time!!!
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The “Gun Room” has some interesting C&R questions this time around. First one that caught my eye was on regarding a Carcano cavalry carbine (they guy thought it might be WW1, but it sure sounds like a WW2 gun, though the article doesn’t definitively state one way or another – it just gives advice on how to narrow it down). There’s also a good one about a M1911A1 pistol that was the individual’s father’s weapon during WW2 – and there’s a good chance that it might have been at Pearl Harbor on December 7th. G&A indicates the value (already at ~$2100) could double with documentable provenance. Documenting provenance is very difficult though, and I generally advise people to buy the weapon not the story. Another individual wrote in about a 1917 Smith and Wesson revolver. Now there’s a pistol I’d love to own. . .
There’s also an article on the XDm 9 with its 19+1 configuration. I’ve got one of these pistols, and I really love the ergonomics. Unfortunately with the weather I haven’t been able to take it out to the range yet. Depending on the ammo used, the were able to get 2.5 to 4.0 inch groups, and they indicated that the sidearm can easily handle +P and +P+ ammunition, really increasing the utility of the 9mm caliber.
There’s also a great article on the Spencer repeating rifle. I’m usually more of a WW2 buff, but the Civil War and post Civil War era is becoming increasingly interesting to me (there’s this reproduction Sharps rifle in 45-120 that I’ve drooled over on many occasions, but I digress). The cool part is they get one of the real things out and do a range test. I’m now officially jealous of these guys!
Until next time!!!
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Remember, if you get a suspicious email, save them and forward them to the fraud protection emails of the appropriate web sites. . .
Until next time!
Saturday, December 27, 2008
I just came across a good read over at the Warrior Science Group called “On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs”. It’s an excerpt from the book On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and should be a must read for just about everyone, but especially anyone who takes their right to self defense seriously. It’s an absolutely no nonsense discussion about the dangers of denial in the modern world. It defines three basic roles of people in society, the sheep, the wolf, and the sheepdog, but explains that these are not nice neat pigeon holes. They instead represent a continuum:
"If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed."
Another good tidbit here:
"Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love."
And a bit near the end:
"This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial."
In some ways it’s an oversimplification, but it does succinctly describe some of the trends in modern society. There is a fairly large segment of the population that believes someone else is going to take care of them, or worse, that it is someone else’s JOB to take care of them. These people are frequently in favor of strict gun control because it gives them the illusion that they have “defanged” the wolves, when all they have done is “defanged” their fellow citizens and created more prey for the wolves.
Until next time!
Monday, December 22, 2008
“While acknowledging the constitutional right to bear arms, I feel that there may be an economic method to persuade gun owners to part with their guns. Governments sometimes require citizens to collectively bear the costs incurred by a few. Society could say, "Fine, you can have your guns. However, we know that the private ownership of guns causes huge economic losses for our society. We want the owners of guns to collectively pay for those losses." I believe that if the owner of each gun had to pay the pro-rated share of the violence done by all guns, he would be inclined to dispose of the gun quickly.”
I guess Mr. Dixon would be okay with a tax on other expressions of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. What about $100 for every article published in a local paper and $500 for something on a national level? $1 for each internet post? $1 for every phone call? How about throwing in a pew tax of $20 every time you go to Church as well? If you want the right to trial by jury, does a tax of $1000 per case plus the lost wages of the jurors seem appropriate?
Mr. Dixon misses the entire concept of an “inalienable right”. A right is just that – it is something that is not granted by our government. It is an area our government allegedly holds no power over. Charging to exercise a right is an infringement of that right as surely as any gun ban. Furthermore he advocates the same fallacy that gun banners do – the law abiding with no guilt who are in no way contributing to the “social cost” of criminal acts bear the brunt of paying for the damage done.
Taxation was one of the central issues that started the first American Revolution, and quite frankly I believe any such proposal would be met with equal hostility today. Mike Vanderboegh has expressed essentially that same sentiment over on his blog. Hopefully saner heads will prevail and Mr. Dixon’s wrong-headed neo-royalist ideas will be consigned once again to the dustbin of history – where they belong.
Until next time!
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Collecting all of the parts took some time, and I finally got the last of what I needed at the gun show today. It’s built on a Superior Arms lower with a Olympic lower parts kit. The pistol grip and buttstock are M16 GI. I assembled the lower myself. The upper is an old A1 upper with a Colt barrel I came across at the show today. The bolt and carrier assembly are a chrome Young bolt and carrier. Now all I need is a 60’s vintage sling and I’m ready to rock and roll!
Until next time!!!
Ammunition was back at the show, although the prices are twice what I was paying 2-3 years ago. You could get 500 rounds of .223 for $170 or so for the low-end stuff. 7.62x39 was a bit less plentiful but roughly in the same ballpark. Anything that could be mis-labeled an “assault rifle” by ignorant gun grabbers has also gone up in price anywhere from 30% to 50% since before the election, and there were few to be found.
Not as many C&R rifles as I’d hoped to see. Unfortunately a lot of people were packing up shop early because of the weather. I figure very few people will be at the show tomorrow. I had my eye on a couple of decent home defense shot guns, but didn’t pick one up. My wife hasn’t gotten my Christmas present yet though . . .
I actually saw a lot of people I knew behind the tables. I’m thinking about setting up a table next time around, but we’ll see how it goes.
Until next time!!!
Friday, December 19, 2008
Produced by three arsenals (Winchester, Remington, and Eddystone), it was put into high-volume production to supplement existing stocks of M1903 Springfield rifles (which numbered only about 600,000 when the U.S. entered the war in 1917). Over 2 million were produced over a two year period.
I own one Model 1917 rifle. Outside it’s a beautiful piece, but the barrel was a major disappointment when I received it. I’ve shot it a few times with medium loads, and the barrel has started to look a bit better. I believe most of the problem on this particular rifle is due to copper fouling. The accuracy seems reasonable even with the somewhat suspect barrel condition.
American Rifleman indicates that 50% to 75% pieces are generally fetching $350 to $600 at this point, with a Blue Book value for a 100% gun close to $2500. The Blue Book value seems a bit high, even for a pristine piece – but if it was a pristine Winchester I could almost believe it with the premium Winchester collectors are willing to pay.
Until next time!!!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Gun Owners of America is urging its members (and everyone else) to contact National Geographic regarding their slanted and yellow journalism on this topic. The program had numerous factual errors and presented debunked research in support of their anti-Second agenda. I’ve reprinted my letter (which is an editing of the one suggested by GOA) below.
Dear Mr. Kelly:
I have always been a supporter of National Geographic magazine. As a youth I eagerly awaited the monthly subscription to learn about our world and the solar system beyond. However at this point I must move away from your publication as it has become a source of thinly veiled anti-gun propaganda.
I speak specifically of the Explorer show entitled "Guns In America" -- which has run several times this month. The slant toward an unsupportable gun control position was palpable. The show used fallacious statistics without rebutting them, all in an effort to demonize firearms.
For example, "Guns in America" falsely claimed that guns in the home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to serve as protection. That is simply not true. The author of this study, Arthur Kellerman, has been discredited many times (by groups such as the National Academy of Sciences), so it is intellectually dishonest that your channel would even cite his work.
Second, "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die by unintentional gunfire. In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that you feed them. Can I expect to see a show in the near future highlighting the danger of feeding children?
Third, "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many negative uses of guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth is quite the opposite. According to statistics from the Clinton Justice Department in 2007, guns are used at least 50 times more often to save life than take life.
Finally, "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun "authorities," thus leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes. (Please see the poll results on the website for the National Association of Chiefs of Police.) Why were none of these authorities ever cited?
The National Geographic Society's purpose is "to increase and diffuse geographic knowledge while promoting the conservation of the world's cultural, historical, and natural resources." I would submit to you that pushing such an unabashedly anti-Second Amendment position is far afield from your stated purpose.
Hopefully National Geographic will get the message, but it seems like they’re bought and paid for by the extreme left at this point.
Until next time!!!
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Not only could the Mayor himself not be bothered to show up to this hearing, instead sending Alex Fryer as his designated mouthpiece, but Mr. Fryer went so far as to suggest that the majority of the opposition came from outside the city, and that "…we believe this has a lot of support from the community."
The Mayor and Mr. Fryer’s "belief" aside, the numbers seem to tell a far different story. According to the article:
"Twenty-two individuals signed up to speak in favor of Nickels' rule change whereas more than 60 spoke against. Of these, roughly half, or more, lived inside Seattle and most of the rest claimed to visit or work in the Emerald City on a regular basis."
Not only do the numbers not seem to support the unconstitutional moves of the Mayor, but perhaps more encouraging is the range of demographics speaking out against the move:
"There were healthy numbers of liberals and progressives, environmentalists and community activists mixed in with Republicans and Libertarians who were opposed to the notion that, despite being licensed to legally carry a concealed firearm, they'd be forced to walk unarmed in city parks while gang members, stalkers and sundry other criminals are free to pack heat."
The left always likes to talk about the virtues of multi-culturism and bi-partisan efforts, and it looks like in this case the broadest base of people do NOT support these moves by the Seattle Mayor’s office. Even those who spoke in favor of the measure admitted that the bans would not have prevented numerous recent high-profile attacks in the city, nor would they be likely to prevent such attacks in the future. The author then draws the logical conclusion:
"Which begs the question, and was asked numerous times by audience members, if the ban on guns in public places wouldn't have prevented these high-profile murder cases, and if it won't dissuade actual criminals from having firearms or 'deadly weapons' in public places, what is the point of having a ban at all? "
That of course is the operative question, and it is the question we all have been trying to get the anti-Second Amendment community to answer for decades. From Los Angeles, to DC, to Chicago, to New York, gun bans have created nothing more than the illusion of safety while turning law-abiding individuals who take their own self protection seriously into criminals and letting the real criminals murder, rape, and steal at will with a tailor made supply of disarmed victims. Hopefully Mayor Nickles will rethink his unconstitutional positions. If not, perhaps the people of Seattle will decide someone who respects their rights and liberties deserves the job instead.
Until next time!!!
Ted starts out with the oft repeated tale of the hapless Plaxico Burress – the New York Giants player who shot himself in the leg. Now he’s facing a mountain of legal problems. Why? Because he had the temerity to have a GLOCK (oooh, evil) in his possession in New York City. That’s it – and that warrants condign legal action by the city – the fact that he had a weapon in his possession – a weapon that is perfectly legal in the majority of these United States.
As always, Ted doesn’t put too fine a point on it:
“Criminal thugs, of course, are not deterred from carrying guns by New York City's draconian gun laws. Mayor Blowhard Bloomberg and other Big Apple elected buffoons who forbid NYC citizens from defending themselves are complicit in turning innocent, law-abiding citizens into defenseless victims.”
Maybe every time a citizen is attacked and killed in New York City, Bloomberg and his cronies should be charged as accessories? I bet some laws would change pretty darn quick at that point!
Ted also makes an astute parallel to the incident in Mumbai:
“Imagine terrorists simultaneously attacking a number of hotels in Manhattan, or an event at Madison Square Garden or Central Park. As good as they are, it would take hours or days for the New York City's finest to kill or capture all of the terrorists.
“Now try to imagine the same scenario if New York City residents were allowed to carry guns to protect themselves. At least they would have a fighting chance. Not today.
“Thanks to its well-body-guarded mayor and other anti-freedom bureaucrats, New York City residents would be as helpless as the victims in Mumbai.”
Again, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Terrorists are going to look for soft targets in the United States, and because of their restrictive gun laws, many of the major metropolitan areas in the US – not just New York, but Chicago, DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, among many others have effectively painted targets on themselves. I can only pray that the people realize this fact before it’s too late.
Until next time!!!
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
“As your sheriff, I refused to disclose that information because I believe many people obtain a concealed handgun license for personal security and would not want that information made public. I also resist disclosing personal information because of the continuing identity theft risks.
“Despite my belief (shared by sheriffs across Oregon), an Oregon court recently decided that there is no evidence that people obtain concealed handgun licenses for security measures. The court ordered the Jackson County Sheriff to disclose a list of all the concealed handgun license holders in his county to the local newspaper. The case is now before the Oregon Court of Appeals.”
Everyone in Washington County should send a big THANK YOU to Sheriff Gordon for his integrity in the face of yet another bizarre “interpretation” of the law by Oregon’s Courts. Hopefully the order will be struck down on appeal or at the Oregon Supreme Court.
Unfortunately the Oregon Appellate Courts don’t have a good track record at this point. The Oregon Firearms Federation has released an alert indicating that the Appellate Court has ruled that an individual’s car is now a “public place.” The ruling came in response to t he case, Bryan Ward VS State of Oregon, in which a Portland Police officer, arrested an individual with an unconcealed handgun in his car.
Some commentary from OFF:
“It has always been our position that open carry in a vehicle was clearly protected by Oregon law. ORS 166.250 clearly states that except for CHL holders, it is concealed carry in a vehicle that is prohibited. It further states that the prohibition against concealed, loaded carry in a vehicle does not apply to ‘a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters.’
“The Appeals Court decision turns on its head Oregon's preemption statute which allows only the state legislature to regulate possession of firearms, except for loaded carry in public places. If your car is now considered a "public place" will a law enforcement officer need a warrant to search it?”
This ruling certainly opens up a huge can of worms. Hopefully it will be revisited either by the Oregon Supreme Court or through legislative action. Until then, I worry about the level of judicial activism we’re witnessing in many of these recent Oregon cases.
Until next time!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The break in the case came when a 15-year-old was discovered with one of the stolen firearms at his school. Authorities arrested the 15-year-old and his older brother Christopher Aguon, 21, of Vancouver as well as a 17-year-old and 20-year-old (not named in the story) in connection with the robbery.
Hopefully all of these individuals will have the book thrown at them. It is people like these that represent the greatest danger to our Second Amendment rights. They also prove the adage that gun control laws only impact the lawful. Thieves and criminals have no regard for the law and other people’s property. In the wrong hands these firearms could have done a great deal of damage. Fortunately most (if not all) of them are now back in the owner’s hands.
Until next time!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The picture in the Senate is, however, not quite as favorable.
Going forward, it appears that a pro-Second majority is in the bag in the House of Representatives; however we can’t take that for granted. Remember when firearm related bills are proposed to write your representatives. In the Senate one suggested tactic is to focus on the bloc of “C” rated senators. This probably isn’t a bad tactic as they could go either way on any particular piece of legislation. However if we value our liberties, we need to write our representatives regardless of where they fall on the curve, from the staunchest “A” rated supporter of our right to keep and bear arms all the way through the worst “F” rated gun grabber. Even if we have no hope of lobbying our representative, we can’t afford to remain silent as the stakes are simply too high.
Until next time!!!
“Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in an attempt to strong-arm the newspaper into firing editorial writers who had criticized him.
“The 51-year-old Democrat was also accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics—that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.”
It’s amazing that the people of Illinois put up with this sort of flagrant corruption, and I hope that Blagojevich ends up in jail for a very long time for these atrocities.
I also find it amazingly hypocritical that an individual who has campaigned tirelessly to limit firearm ownership opportunities for the citizens of his state holds a firearm owner’s card. Yet one more example of the extreme left’s elitist “I’m better than you” and “I’m above you” mentality. This sort of arrogance is replete in the politics of these corrupt demagogues who are sending our country to hell in a hand basket. Hopefully the people of Illinois will wake up and attack the Chicago machine, but as a member of that machine has just been elected President, I’m not holding my breath.
Until next time!
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
“Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?
“India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.”
Ron Paul is just the latest of many individuals around the world who have astutely pointed out that the disaster in Mumbai represents the ultimate failure of strict gun control and the dangerous illusion of safety that it generates for an unwitting populace. The people of India believed that they were safe. They believed that individuals with firearms did not roam their streets. They believed that their laws and police protected them from harm, but unfortunately they were wrong on all counts. Their police were ill trained. The perpetrators of this inhumane atrocity cared nothing for the rule of law or the strictures put in place by the Indian government. The people were therefore left defenseless as a legal code will not stop a terrorist’s bullet.
Ron Paul also makes what should be an obvious point, but one that is completely lost on the proponents of gun control:
“The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.”
The only effective defense against an individual with a firearm is for the potential victim or victims to be protected with their own firearms – and the will and ability to use those firearms effectively. People are taught to “call the police” if the worst happens. If one is disarmed, that is the only option, but in reality people aren’t calling for the police, they’re calling for a gun to defend them against attack. Unfortunately police are often critical minutes away. By the time they arrive, their job is limited to chalking out the body and cordoning off the crime scene to collect evidence. Societies with strict gun control effectively remove the ability of the individual to protect themselves.
Ron Paul ends the commentary with a warning:
“In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself! Yet another great dose of wisdom from Ron Paul.
Until next time!!!
Monday, December 8, 2008
I’m all for freedom of the press, but this is the organization that used its both the Chicago Tribune and the L.A. Times as bully pulpits to call for the repeal of the Second Amendment in response to the Heller decision. To see both of these major papers calling for a shredding of the very Bill of Rights that protects their right to a free press and free speech is beyond the pale, and it shows the callous disregard the far left has for the basic rights of Americans.
Many readers at the time vowed to vote with their feet, and it looks like it’s finally making a difference.
Until next time!!!
According to a recent article from the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama said that Americans don’t need to rush out and stock up on firearms before he’s sworn into office. According to the article Obama indicated:
"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment. Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."
Sure, that makes it all better – let’s just ignore your track record in Illinois, ignore your track record in the Senate, ignore your picks for your administration, and ignore the insulting question you included in your staff questionnaire. I’m sorry, Mr. Obama, your credibility on this issue is already below zero and losing ground fast.
If you really want to win over “lawful gun owners” promise NOT to enact an assault weapon ban, promise NOT to enact the draconian “ammunition accountability act”, promise NOT to require universal firearm registration, promise to rein in the abuses of the BATFE. Otherwise, stop wasting your breath on obviously false propaganda.
The Brady Campaign’s comments on the issue were predictably condescending. Peter Hamm, designated mouthpiece for the aforementioned freedom-haters club, states:
"We don't dispute [the gun sales hike] because the numbers from the federal system certainly confirm that there is increased activity out there. We just think it's a bit stupid. Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don't think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more."
Oooooh SNAP! Americans are now “stupid” because they want to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Way to win friends and influence people there Peter. I’m certain that many existing gun owners have taken this opportunity to add to their collections, but based on personal experience from gun shows, there are a lot of new people out there as well.
Simply because it might take Obama and the Brady Campaign “time” to shred the Bill of Rights is no reason to sit by complacently. In fact, that seems to be what they want us to do. Remember – they can’t take away our freedoms, no matter what unconstitutional “law” they pass – we can only choose to give them up. The next several years will require the utmost in effort on our parts, but I am certain we are equal to the coming trials.
Until next time!
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The author points out that while India has strict gun control, all of the weapons used in the attack were “prohibited weapons” – yet those laws did not matter one whit to the deranged terrorists merely out to spill the blood of the innocent. Those same laws are equally “irrelevant” in Britain, New York, or any other place where individuals choose to ignore them in perpetrating their criminal ends – be those ends the drug trade, the arms trade, protection rackets, or simple mass murder in support of a “political agenda”.
The author also points out another sobering fact:
“The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India’s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.”
I have great respect for many in law enforcement in the US. A neighboring county in Oregon (Clackamas) has a spectacular indoor pistol range run by the county Sheriff including marksmanship and practical pistol classes. Unfortunately even good cops can’t be everywhere at once and they can’t protect everyone. People are not, or should not be, sheep that require shepherds for protection. We must take some of that responsibility upon ourselves.
The author goes on to make that very point:
“. . .in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.”
He goes on to cite an example from 1909 where Londoners used their own firearms to disrupt and bring down individuals attempting a robbery (who were fresh off an attempt to blow up the President of France). He also compares the growth of the “right to carry” movement in the United States and how our violent crime rates have plummeted.
It is clear that at least a few people in the UK recognize the scope of the mistake they have made as a people by throwing away their right to keep and bear arms. It falls to the United States, perhaps the last bastion of freedom in a darkening world, to show the rest of the world back to the light.
Until next time!
Rahm Emanuel – soon to be Chief of Staff, Clinton point man on gun control.
Hillary Clinton – soon to be Secretary of State, avowed Second Amendment opponent, soon to have the power to negotiate our Second Amendment away through treaty with the UN.
Tom Daschle – soon to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, another avowed Second Amendment opponent, soon to have the power to declare firearms and ammunition (which contains lead!) a public health threat and attack them from that avenue.
Eric Holder – soon to be Attorney General, opposes the Heller decision and is a proponent of sweeping gun bans.
The clincher is the latest atrocity. Say you want to work in the White House, or for the Administration. There are several people on the left that are supporters of the Second Amendment. In fact, the only reason the Democrats were able to gain a majority in the House was by running socially conservative “blue dog” Democrats. One of the questions on the “White House Personnel Data Questionnaire” is:
"Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."
First off, only five states of the Union have misguided and unconstitutional registration requirements. However, it is clear that Obama wants to make that questionable tactic, which has led to so much pain and suffering in the past in other parts of the world, the law of the land. Gun owners are clearly second class citizens to Obama, and if he has his way, they will be in the rest of the nation in short order.
It is time that law-abiding firearm owners stop taking these sorts of insults lying down. It is high time we reclaim our liberties and stop allowing the enemies of our Bill of Rights, or national sovereignty, and the freedoms we hold so dear – that so much American blood has been spilled to protect, to walk all over us. In the coming months I encourage every freedom loving American to not give a single inch to those who would shackle us with the chains of slavery in the name of “progress”.
Until next time!!!
Friday, December 5, 2008
The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.
This updated policy represents a huge win for the concealed carry community. I sincerely hope that this new policy will hold and will not be re-visited or rescinded by the incoming administration.
Until next time!!!
Hopefully saner heads will prevail in North Carolina, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that the extreme left is emboldened by the results of the 2008 general election and draconian firearms restrictions are once again on the table, a scant few months after the landmark Heller ruling.
I quite frankly find it unconscionable that Democratic Party has become a haven for those who would simply shred the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately the “blue dog” Democrats lack the political clout to influence the national party. The next few years promise to be pivotal in terms of firearm and Second Amendment legislation, and this author does not plan on giving a single inch without a fight.
Until next time!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Predictably, those opposed to concealed carry and firearms in general are trying to play the fear card, with the party line being parroted by Texas A&M senior Darrin Barton:
"I don't believe that we should be putting firearms in the midst of students who are going through trauma and stress and situations that can push students to the limits."
Matthew Rogers of Texas A&M’s chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus seems to present a more rational view:
"All we're asking is that you allow us to make that choice. If I can legally carry somewhere else, allow me to make the decision whether or not I want to carry here on campus... "
Even in Texas I expect the debate on this issue will be spirited. I sincerely hope that this legislation passes and becomes a model for other states.
Until next time!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
So what is right and wrong with this article that it makes it worth blogging? Well the article is short, and it doesn’t make any glaring technical errors, but it does underscore some of the prevailing misconceptions that we as gun owners are going to have to fight in the coming months and years.
First, with all of the background checks and other hoops a law-abiding individual has to go through in order to purchase a firearm, the fact that a SWAT team member would leave behind a Class III weapon in unconscionable. If that weapon had fallen into the wrong hands, it could have done a LOT of damage.
Second, it refers to the M4 as an assault rifle. The good here is that it calls out the model of the rifle specifically (kudos to the author!). However, in the minds of many people, the fully automatic M4 is no different than the semi-automatic AR15, and where the term “assault rifle” can be somewhat accurately applied to the select fire M4, it can’t be accurately applied to the AR15. Yet the media applies that term on a regular basis, in a deliberate attempt to deceive through equivocation.
It falls to gun owners to work to educate the public on the differences between “assault rifles” and “semi-automatic rifles”. If you ask a random person on the street if they support the idea of an “assault weapon ban”, many people will say yes. However, if you then ask those who said “yes” what an assault weapon is, the overwhelming majority respond that they are fully automatic “machine guns”. That is the point where we must step up and inform them that the weapons covered under any such ban aren’t fully automatic at all, but rather semi automatic weapons including those sold to the people by the government (the M1 Carbine).
Education is ultimately the key to preserving our Second Amendment rights, and all concerned gun owners must act as patient teachers to undo the damage of decades of anti-firearm propaganda.
Until next time!!!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Unfortunately that isn’t the end of the story:
"Hain said Monday that her baby-sitting service has suffered, her children have been harassed, and she has been ostracized by her neighbors because of DeLeo's actions. In one instance, she said, a neighbor who saw her in a local store had the manager ask her to leave because she was carrying her handgun.
"'I fought for my right, and now I'm still being punished,' she said."
Unfortunately with the vehemently anti-Second amendment culture being fostered in our schools today, it’s not surprising the public backlash Hain has been subjected to. In light of the Heller decision, it may be time for individuals on the receiving end of discrimination like that which Hain has received to file civil rights lawsuits. Now that the court has ruled unambiguously that the Second Amendment affirms an individual right, it should be afforded the same civil rights protection as any other right.
Until next time!!!
Monday, November 24, 2008
The portions about tyranny and the Second Amendment being put in place to defend against it are excellent, as is the analogy to A Bug’s Life (yes, the Pixar film). It makes a very timely case for individuals understanding that the government is the servant of the people, not vice versa. It also makes another timely tie between the movement to disarm the American populace and long-established patterns of tyranny. It’s a great read, and I encourage everyone to go peruse!
Until next time!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Next came Obama’s first choice for Attorney General – Eric Holder. Holder is yet another incremental gun banner. Some of his positions:
"I want to add my voice to those who are calling on Congress to finally -- to finally -- pass these very common-sense gun measures.
"First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold.
"Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.
"Third, to pass the president's handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers.
"Fourth, to support research in smart-gun technology, which can limit a gun's use to its authorized owner.
"And finally, to close the gun show loop hole by requiring a background check for all gun purchases at gun shows."
Translation, I want to make guns effectively illegal because point four above is impossible to achieve, and furthermore blames the tool for the action of the user.
America has voted for "change", and it looks like the first change we’re going to see is the effective castration of the Bill of Rights to remove that pesky Second Amendment. Now more than ever is the time to join NRA, GoA, and other organizations that will stand up for your Second Amendment rights. Now is the time to prepare to stand up for your own rights as well – write your Representatives and other elected officials – be ready to challenge unconstitutional laws in Court. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," and based on the way the next administration is shaping up, we are going to have to be vigilant indeed. Otherwise the hard won gains of the past few years will evaporate as we take several steps backward.
Until next time!!!
Monday, November 10, 2008
The post election editorials have run the entire gamut, though even die hard liberal Pelosi is urging Obama to "govern from the middle". Right up until the end of the election, Obama’s website stated his policy would be to:
"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, "assault weapon bans" have nothing to do with the fully automatic and select fire weapons found on "battlefields". Some are reporting that this entry has disappeared from the Obama website. I still strongly believe that this statement represents Obama’s true feelings about firearms, regardless of how much lip service he has paid to the Second Amendment.
The next two years at least will represent a time with a strong Democratic majority in Congress. The last time the Democrats had this level of representation was in 1978, halfway through the Carter administration (they’d secured a larger majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate in 1976, but lost seats in 1978). Some of those Democrats in the House are the “blue dog” Democrats, who will be unlikely to support anti Second Amendment legislation (if they value their job!). I sincerely hope that the Congress has the wisdom to understand that infringement of the right of Americans should not be on the table.
Only time will tell... I think I’m going to be very busy writing letters to my representatives over the next two years, and I stand ready to take legal action against any unconstitutional laws passed by the new administration.
Until next time!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Some solid examples from the editorial (some of which have appeared in previous entries in this blog):
"One of Mr. Obama's first statements on the issue really said it all. During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Mr. Obama blamed others, saying his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Mr. Obama's own handwriting.)"
So not only in 1996 did Obama allegedly say that he supported legislation banning manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, he lied about it, was caught in that lie, yet still proclaims support for the Second Amendment? Apparently dishonesty knows no bounds for Obama.
Obama's record on concealed carry is no better:
"In 2004, he said he was "consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," and that he'd back "federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement."
Well, so much for the "bear" part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Again, Obama shows that he is overtly hostile to the Second Amendment, but wants his supporters not only to believe that he’s a proponent or the Second Amendment, but them to "get in the faces" of people who say otherwise. Again, dishonesty knows no bound for Obama.
Obama also represents a direct threat to hunting:
"...in 2005, he voted for a ban on all but the smallest rifle ammunition used for hunting (or for anything else). If the measure had passed, it would have classified most rifle ammunition beyond the low-powered .22 caliber as "armor piercing ammunition," prohibited for civilian manufacture by federal law. The ammunition ban was hardly Mr. Obama's first act against hunters, either. In 1999, Mr. Obama proposed increasing firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries an excise tax of $55. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen, which funds many of our wildlife conservation programs, into a tool to punish gun buyers."
So much for his support of "hunters and sportsmen," yet many people still seem to be soaking in the lies. When the NRA ran television spots detailing the issue above, the Obama campaign threatened the FCC licenses of the stations that ran them (see earlier blog entry). So not only is Obama lying about his position on firearms and on hunting, he is willing to use Gestapo tactics to prevent people from hearing the truth.
Obama has also supported foundations with a virtually stated goal to abolish the Second Amendment:
"As if voting for anti-gun plans wasn't bad enough, Mr. Obama also helped pay for them. He was a board member from 1994 to 2001 of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups in the country. On Mr. Obama's watch, Joyce donated $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center, the nation's most aggressive gun-prohibitionist group. Many of the Joyce Foundation's projects were aimed at editing the Second Amendment out of the Constitution."
Even with these facts in evidence, Obama has the hubris to state he supports the Second Amendment.
Perhaps even more terrifying is what Obama could do to the Supreme Court. In what should have been an easy 9-0 decision based on Framers Intent and the tenor of the Constitution, the Heller case was a squeaker at 5-4. So what sort of justices would Obama nominate???
"Mr. Obama has said he would not have nominated Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. It was Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller, which declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, and that D.C.'s handgun ban is unconstitutional. Justice Thomas joined in that opinion. As a member of the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama also voted against confirming Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom joined Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. That means four of the five pro-freedom votes on the Supreme Court would not have been there under an Obama presidency."
Yet again Obama's "words" don’t match his actions. In a campaign where he proclaims that "words matter", it’s clearly because he doesn’t want people taking a close look at his record. Obama represents a clear and present danger to the Second Amendment, and by extension to the rest of our liberties as well. He is a leftist radical who, like Mao, recognizes that political power flows from the barrel of a gun, and therefore, also like Mao, wants to control all of the guns.
On election day, vote like your freedom is at stake... because it is!
Friday, October 17, 2008
Yep – that pretty much sums it up nicely. Interestingly if Obama had his way – Shatner’s character wouldn’t have been armed as Obama is against both concealed carry and handguns. Think about it when you vote in November!
The Attorney General at least has it half right. No city or state should have the authority to “ban guns” because it violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, if you look at the Washington State Constitution , Article I Section 2 states the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and furthermore Article I Section 24 states:
“SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
Language there is even more clear than in the Second Amendment – the right is not granted, it will “not be impaired”, and the citizen’s right to bear arms in the cause of self-defense is clearly stated.
Mayor Nickels believes he has a “moral responsibility” to ban guns because:
"We cannot wait for another incident, or another victim. The simple fact is our public buildings, events, parks and community centers are safer without guns.”
Typical erroneous emotional twaddle designed by corrupt politicians to deprive Americans of the rights as affirmed not only by the Second Amendment, but the Washington State Constitution as well. Not only have gun bans been shown to create a more dangerous environment, but more victims as well.
The anti-Second Amendment crowd seems to suffer from the same logical deficiency that many suffered from during the Black Plague. During the Plague, people were dying, and the “logic” was that since cats carry evil spirits, all of the cats should be killed and that would solve the problem of plague. Unfortunately the cats ate the rats which carried the fleas which carried the Plague. So by killing the cats, the people of the Middle Ages had hit upon the one thing that would actually make the situation much worse as their “solution” to the problem. Gun Banners make the same leap – because there is violence they seek to remove the guns. Unfortunately it generally takes a gun to defend yourself against an assailant armed with a gun. By banning guns, these misguided politicians only remove the guns from the hands of the law abiding, leaving the criminals free to prey on their victims at will – just like the rats and fleas were free to multiply at will with equally disastrous results.
So to “clarify” for Mayor Nickels – you have NO RIGHT to ban guns. By proposing so, you’re not only taking the least logical, least factual, and most destructive point of view, you’re violating your oaths to uphold the law and protect the rights of the citizens who elected you into office. I’d suggest the people of Seattle seriously consider recalling their Mayor as he clearly has absolutely no respect for their liberties.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The letter the DNC provides includes “proof” that the NRA ads are in error. Unfortunately that “proof” is not worth the paper it is written on (or the pixels it is comprised of). They include citations from FactCheck.org which are quite frankly wrong . FactCheck ironically is not “checking facts” these days – it is serving as a Political Front for the same group that funds the Brady Campaign.
The NRA has sent a rebuttal letter to the stations. Hopefully the stations will stand up to blatantly anti-Civil Rights Chicago machine politics of the Obama Campaign. Make no mistake, Obama seems determined to lie his way to the Presidency, and your Second (and now First) Amendment rights are at stake.
Until next time!!!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Virgil Richardson, who turns 79 on October 26, served from 1951 to 1953 in the 25th Infantry Division as a Radio Operator. The 25th Infantry Division fought with distinction for a total of 37 months in Korea receiving two South Korean Presidential Unit Citations.
According to the article, Richardson “fondly remembered the… M1 Garand” and he even retained his rifle’s serial number. Given that over 7 million M1 Garand rifles were produced in total by four manufacturers, and that many still remain in Korea, Asia, and Europe in the arsenals of nations who received the rifles as surplus, finding any one particular rifle is tantamount to finding the proverbial needle in a haystack.
Jim managed to track down the rifle through a Kentucky gun broker, who didn’t even believe that the numbers actually matched. The price of the rifle hasn’t been disclosed. The article mentions that Garands frequently bring up to $3000 – but such specimens are rare. The Civilian Marksmanship Program has examples starting at $600 and lower.
Needless to say, the elder Richardson was stunned by the gift:
"I couldn't even talk when he gave it to me," Virgil Richardson told The Flint Journal. "It didn't even have to be the same gun to be important to me."
He goes on to state:
"What shocked me the most is how very heavy it is. I have trouble now holding it up and aiming it. I guess they were made for 20- and 21-year-olds."
Just an amazing story and an amazing bit of detective work. To Virgil Richardson – Happy Birthday, and thank you for your service to your country. To Jim Richardson, great job – you are truly a man of class and honor!
Until next time!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Gun Owners of America sums up the situation:
“…the city council has thumbed its nose at the Court's ruling and has redrafted its registration law to impose a burdensome 12-step process that, as summarized in one legislative report, involves "multiple trips to gun dealers and government offices, fingerprinting, a written exam, and ballistic testing."
“At a minimum, some officers believe this process will take 14 days. But a more realistic assessment was offered by DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier who said the process "could take months."”
While previous reports indicate that the District is being taken back to court, but now comes information that there may be a legislative solution. According to a recent email alert, the House of Representatives is set to vote on HR 6691 – which would effectively repeal the DC gun ban. The bill was introduced by Travis Childers (D-MS) and it would remove the semi-automatic pistol and rifle ban and registration requirements. It would also remove the mandatory trigger lock provision.
According to The Washington Post:
"Although the bill is expected to pass in the House, possibly as soon as this week, its fate is less clear in the Senate. It has won the backing of 48 [House] Democrats, many facing reelection in strongly pro-gun areas, and is expected to pick up broad support among Republicans."
And therein lays the rub. This bill will allow the pro-gun Democrats in the House to vote for a pro-Second Amendment bill in this important election year but the Democratic leadership can potentially kill the bill in the Senate to appease those that take a view more in line with the official anti-Second Amendment party platform (detailed in a previous blog).
There’s an easy way to make this tactic backfire on the anti-Civil Rights factions in the Democratic Party – urge your senator to vote YES on the Senate version of this bill. Contact information is available on the Gun Owners of America activism website. I urge everyone to contact their Senators on this vitally important bill!
Until next time!
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
"Bars criminal offenders or their attorneys from recovering damages for injuries they receive while engaged in specified criminal acts even if not charged."
This is an important common sense law – if someone breaks into your home, and breaks their neck, they don’t get to sue. Similarly if someone breaks into your home, and you shoot them, they can’t charge you with assault or civil action.
"Removes the duty to retreat from a criminal attack before using force to defend yourself or another if you are lawfully in a residence or vehicle (vehicle must be your own or that of an immediate family member). In such situations, the burden of proof that an act was not self defense falls on the prosecution provided the defender was lawfully in the residence or vehicle and the attacker was not."
This is a HUGE one because it covers not only the home but your vehicle as well. Because of the Castle Doctrine, people are able to once again actually defend themselves in their own homes.
Picking Up or Dropping Off at School"Decriminalized ccw in a school safety zone while immediately in the process of picking up or dropping off kids at school provided the CHL holder remains in the vehicle."
This is another important one as it rules that a CCW holder can carry on school grounds in a vehicle. Unfortunately it doesn’t permit CCW in schools and retains schools as a “disarmed victim zone”, errrr, a “gun-free” zone.
"You are not required to have a CHL to lawfully carry concealed in your own home."
Again, this should be a no-brainer, but I’m glad to see that its explicitly written into the law.
"Landlords cannot deny or restrict tenants who have a CHL, or guests with a CHL while the tenant is present, their right to keep and bear arms."
This one is HUGE as it allows those who rent, rather than own, their home to retain their Second Amendment Rights.
Motor Vehicle Transport
"Unloaded firearms at least twenty-four inches in overall length as measured from the muzzle to the part of the stock furthest from the muzzle with a barrel at least eighteen inches in length do not need to be transported in a closed case or secured in a rack provided they are in plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped (if both as possible). CHL holders can transport a loaded handgun in an unlocked (but closed) glove compartment or vehicle console."
Okay – so you can have your rifle in your car with fewer restrictions than before, but it still seems a bit convolved to me.
"An unloaded firearm is defined as having no ammunition in the firearm and no ammunition loaded into a magazine or speed loader that may be used with the firearm in question and that is located anywhere within the vehicle in question, without regard to where ammunition otherwise is located within the vehicle. What this means is don’t have any magazines or speed loaders loaded in the vehicle ."
The requirements here appear to be fairly onerous to me – looks like there is still work to do in this area.
Firearms Confiscations and Surrenders
"If a firearm is confiscated or surrendered to police, they must take steps to track ownership so it can be returned in the same condition it was in when taken into custody. If a firearm is not returned and a court orders the return, the law enforcement agency is responsible for all legal fees."
Honestly this shouldn’t have had to be legislated, but in light of some recent debacles – it’s clear it did. Glad Ohio passed this one.
Overall it looks like a strong victory for Ohioans as many of their rights to carry and self defense have been restored by this legislation. Many states still have a long way to go, however, and now is not the time to become complacent.
Until next time!!!
Monday, September 8, 2008
A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’
So lets look at what he said in light of the party platform. Obama claims he’s not “taking” anyone’s guns, yet he has proposed numerous weapon bans in the past (handgun ban, semi-auto ban, etc.) and one ban (the deceptively named “assault weapon” ban) is an official part of the Democratic Platform. In politician double speak, not “taking” one’s guns simply means he’ll work to pass the ban with at best a grandfather clause or at worst a registration scheme. Then he can claim he didn’t actually “take away” anyone’s firearms.
His follow-up statement was even more damning than the first statement. Simply posing the allegedly hypothetical “even if…” question implies that it is exactly what he would do if he had his way. The Democrats believe that they are going to make strong gains in Congress this year, so his comments that he doesn’t have “the votes” is more than a little disingenuous and frightening at the same time.
Again, Obama proves yet again that he just doesn’t get it on the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment isn’t safe in cities, it’s not safe in rural Pennsylvania either. The tone of his comments is also insulting, and I’m sure that fact was not lost on the “sportsmen” in the back. The bottom line is yes, Mr. Obama, this CAN be the reason NOT to vote for you. It’s certainly at the top of my list (though with this particular candidate the list is somewhat lengthy based on his policies across the board).
Until next time!!!
Thursday, September 4, 2008
“In 2005, Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of legislation sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) that would have banned nearly all rifle ammunition used for hunting and sport shooting.”
The poll results:
“Seventy-seven percent of likely voters said they oppose legislation to ban such commonly used ammunition, while only nine percent said they would support such a ban. A strong majority of Democrats (58 percent), Republicans (92 percent) and Independents (84 percent) all oppose the ammunition ban that Obama supported -- as do 79 percent of military families. (This nationwide poll of 3,825 likely voters was conducted August 27-29 and has a margin of error +/- 1.6 percentage points.)”
It’s bad when Obama doesn’t even score a majority with his own party. It’s not surprising that Republicans disagreed with him, but the all-important independent vote squarely disagreed with him on this one.
Another good one, self-defense:
"As an Illinois State Senator in 2004, Barack Obama voted against legislation that protects citizens, who use firearms in self-defense in their home or business in spite of local gun bans, from prosecution."
The poll asked likely voters: "Do you agree or disagree that you have the right to use deadly force as a means of self-defense in your home, without having to retreat?"
"Eighty-eight percent of likely voters agree that they should have this basic right to self-defense, while only eight percent disagreed. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (83 percent), Republicans (90 percent) and Independents (91 percent) all agree. (This nationwide poll of 974 likely voters was conducted August 15-18 and has a margin of error +/- 3.2 percentage points.)"
Granted, the connection here is a little more tenuous. The Obama vote wasn’t specifically on castle doctrine, but rather on castle doctrine where there are gun bans in effect. However, because Obama voted against the legislation, it strongly implies that he believes that individuals who DO use deadly force to defend themselves in areas with a gun ban SHOULD be prosecuted. That’s unconscionable in my opinion.
The article also includes a link to a poll that lets you compare your responses to Obama’s positions across the board. Honestly, the poll has some flaws. First it’s a push poll in a lot of areas, and over-simplifies a few issues, but it’s an interesting mental exercise. Check it out at http://www.barackobamatest.com/. I disagreed with Obama about 81% of the time, which sounds about right. I tend to be more moderate on abortion rights and a few other areas.
Until next time!
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
“We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller affirming that right, and we assert the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities.
“We call for education in constitutional rights in schools, and we support the option of firearms training in federal programs serving senior citizens and women. We urge immediate action to review the automatic denial of gun ownership to returning members of the Armed Forces who have suffered trauma during service to their country. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.”
Well now that’s a striking difference! They pretty much get full marks for understanding that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms PREDATED the Second Amendment and that said right is affirmed (in their words, “confirmed”) by the Bill of Rights, not granted by it. I particularly like the focus on education as well. The “zero tolerance” position of most school districts on anything relating to firearms is teaching our children that the gun itself is evil, not their Constitutional Rights. Such a major distortion in the curriculum cannot be allowed to continue.
Again, if the Second Amendment is one of your major concerns this election cycle (and it should be!), then the choice is clear between the parties. At this point the Democrats are trying to play both sides of the fence while in reality coming down firmly on the anti-Second Amendment side of the equation. The Republicans, for their other faults, seem to have a clear understanding of the Second and stand up strongly for our right to self-defense.
Until next time!!!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
“We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”
Well, at least they are paying lip service to the individual right affirmed in the Second Amendment, but that’s honestly the only positive thing I can say about their platform as the remainder of the text demonstrates conclusively that they will most assuredly NOT “preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.”
The key is in what you define as “reasonable regulation”. In the mind of the Democrats (especially in Chicago) it is okay to ban handguns and so-called ‘assault weapons’. That’s like saying you believe in the right of freedom of religion, as long as you’re not Catholic or Jewish. The Heller decision ruled that arbitrary bans of entire classes of firearms are Unconstitutional.
Furthermore what works in Cheyenne honestly hasn’t been tried in Chicago. I bet it would work better than the bans they have now. No one on the Democratic platform committee seems to have “done the math” and realized that the municipalities with the highest crime rates are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws. I know, I know, correlation doesn’t always indicate causality, but I firmly believe in this case it truly does.
The Democrats are promising to reinstate the so-called “assault weapon ban”, even though the first ban was completely ineffective represented restrictions on a class of weapons used in the overwhelming MINORITY of crimes. Quite frankly, I firmly believe that any “assault weapon ban” plays only to the ignorant who believe that because the 1994 ban subsided you can suddenly buy a fully automatic weapon at your local gun store. The anti-Second politicos know better, but that’s not the story they’re going to try to sell to the masses.
In short, the Democrats are making (yet another) promise they simply can’t deliver on. They can’t simultaneously promise gun bans left and right and preserve the Second Amendment at the same time. If they push a hard anti-Second agenda, they’re going to face defections from their own party (or a hammering in 2010). Any pro-gun Democrat should be sharply questioned on his or her party platform to understand where they truly stand on the issues, and if they’ll stand up to their party masters when and if Second Amendment related legislation reaches the floor.
Until next time!
"Let me say right up front that my opinion here will be biased because Sarah is a friend. I met her for the first time about six years ago when she was running for Lt. Governor of Alaska. She's been on my radio show many times and with the help of listeners here in our home town she was elected to office by an overwhelming margin.
"With that out of the way I'll tell you this.
"Sarah is real.
"She is an honest genuine person. She truly cares about Alaskans and the people of her community. She dared to take on the Republican party here, and took that fight straight to the people. She's called for the resignation of the Head of the Alaskan Republicans and forced the former Attorney General to resign by bringing his corrupt actions to light. She has been a crusader for eliminating the 'Good Ol'Boy' politics.
"And as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, let me tell you a little story.
"About a year ago a friend of mine, who is a local Class III Dealer, called me complaining about how our local Trooper detachment was delaying or just outright refusing to sign several Form 1 transfers that had been submitted to them. These transfers were from a couple of Class III Dealers and other Class III holders.
"I started to make some calls and after getting nowhere with the Troopers, I finally called Sarah. Although she was extremely busy she told me that she would look into it and get back to me. I thought 'well that'll take some time', but it was only 2 or 3 days later that right in the middle of my talk show I get this call out of the blue from the Commissioner of Public Safety! He tells us that the Governor had spoken to him and made if very clear that the Troopers should be doing what they are legally obligated to do, and that he apologized personally for the locals not doing it.
"Long and the short, no more problems with transfers.
"We're gonna hate to lose Sarah, we need her to help get us back on track to prosperity. But I think the country needs her more.
"Now I can vote for McCain, without having to hold my nose so hard.
For those of you who don’t know, a Class III firearm is generally a fully-automatic or select fire weapon. These weapons are only legal to own if they are transferable (i.e. pre-86) and the applicable tax stamps have been applied for and received. Unfortunately even in Class III legal (and gun friendly) states, the paperwork has a tendency to get “lost”, “misplaced”, or “otherwise delayed” by the local law enforcement officers who signature is required before the ATF can process the tax stamp.
For Sarah Palin to go out of her way to stand up for the 2nd Amendment rights of those seeking to purchase a Class III weapon answers many of my previous questions about her overall view on the right to keep and bear arms. This goes way beyond so-called “assault weapons” and actually covers the real thing. From a Second Amendment standpoint, McCain couldn’t have done better based on what I’ve seen so far from Palin.
It’ll be interesting to see where the race goes from here, but if the 2nd Amendment is an issue, McCain-Palin win hands down.
Until next time!