Archive for April, 2009

Senator Kerry–Border Security “No”, Gun Control “Yes”

April 4, 2009

Well just what can you really expect from someone that put himself in for medals, then threw them away, but the medals were actually someone else’s, and also negotiated with enemy government representatives while still serving as a reserve officer in the United States Navy? John Kerry deserves to be tarred and feathered, then hung until dead, period. Not a United States Senator that is still determined to undermine and destroy the Constitution if not the United States of America. He has been in league with the international felon George Soros to that end, and now this?

With escalating drug-related violence continuing unabated in Mexico, anti-gun elected officials in Washington continue to let no tragedy go unexploited.

The latest to add his voice to the anti-gun chorus should come as a surprise to no one, as Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) has a long voting record in support of gun control.

This week, Kerry called sending National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border “premature and possibly counterproductive.” But Kerry had no qualms in supporting additional restrictions on law-abiding American gun owners. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/kerry-mexico-failed-state/)

For a fleeting moment Kerry sounded a hopeful tone in his remarks in El Paso when he noted the need to “work harder to enforce existing gun laws against exporting weapons across international borders.” However, Kerry reverted to his usual anti-gun talking points as he called for a ban on imported “assault rifles” (presumably he meant semi-auto “assault weapons”) into the U.S.—a ban that has existed since 1989.

Senator Kerry is either confused about what an “assault rifle” is, is ignorant of the parameters of the existing import ban, or more likely, simply wants to expand his gun control crusade. In either case, and as noted earlier, none of this should come as a surprise from a failed presidential candidate who tried to camouflage his decades long voting record against the Second Amendment by trying to reinvent himself as a “sportsman.” Senator Kerry’s plan to stop the international trafficking of firearms into Mexico by banning legal importation of firearms into the United States simply defies logic and common sense.

American gun owners should be outraged when a sitting U.S. Senator dismisses tightening up our nation’s border security as “possibly counterproductive”, but has no qualms about passing additional restrictions that will be avoided and evaded by criminals.

SOURCE

Petty Officer Danny Dietz Memorial Highway

April 4, 2009

The story of Danny Dietz is one of courage and honor. I have it under the Valhalla heading for any that are interested in learning more about him. I recieved more hate mail for that piece than just about any other story I have ever posted about. I also got more then a few thanking me for getting the word out. Including three from current and former lawmakers.

Colorado stepped up to the plate and hit a home run by dedicating a much traveled road after him.

H/T the Denver Post, even broken clocks are correct twice a day! 😀

Lawmakers choked back tears Friday as they honored a slain naval officer by renaming a stretch of South Santa Fe Drive in his honor.

The road from C-470 to Interstate 25 will be known as Petty Officer Danny Dietz Memorial Highway.

Dietz grew up in Littleton and graduated from Heritage High School.

His family laughed when Sen. Mike Kopp R-Littleton, told how Dietz wanted to be Ninja warrior when he grew up. Instead, he became a Navy SEAL.

Kopp recounted Dietz’s death in 2005 after a gun battle with the Taliban in Afghanistan

Full Story Here

25% is 90% The new math..?

April 4, 2009

Seems like Ms. Pelosi et all are still at it, and still can’t get the facts correct even with help from rogue agencies.

As we continue to report, Congress has jumped into the topic of Mexican border violence with both feet, having held 10 different Subcommittee and Full Committee hearings on the topic, with more coming. It has also become clear that anti-gun politicians and groups are intent on using this issue to advance new gun laws.

In the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Drugs and Crime, Sen. Dianne Feinstein renewed her attacks on gun owners’ rights. During her remarks, she stated that there are over 2,000 guns smuggled into Mexico from the U.S. each day. But when she tried to elicit support for that number from a representative from the BATFE, he responded that the number was much lower. Senator Feinstein was clearly unhappy that he would not endorse her anti-gun sound bite.

Feinstein also repeated the claim that 90% of seized guns are from American sources (please see related story below). In fact, it is unknown where most of the arms possessed by the cartels originate. According to the BATFE 90% of the firearms traced are from American sources, but BATFE only traces 25% of the guns seized by Mexican authorities. The remaining 75% of guns seized along with all the firearms remaining in the hands of the cartels are of unknown origin. The fact that only 25% of the guns seized are traced raises a significant question: Why has the Mexican government not requested traces on the remaining 75%? Could it be because those guns are far less likely to have originated in America? Could it be that the Mexican authorities do not want it known where these guns come from? Could it be that it benefits the Mexican government to continue to blame U.S. gun laws to divert attention away from the rampant corruption of local governments and police forces? Could it be all of the above?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also entered the debate, traveling to Mexico and taking the opportunity to blame American gun laws. She called for a renewal of the semi-auto ban, and even trumpeted the ban’s illusory impact: “And there’s no doubt in my mind that the 10 years we had an assault weapons ban in America was one of the tools that helped to drive down the crime rate.”

Perhaps if Clinton had read the congressionally mandated study performed by the Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf) she would know it showed that the ban couldn’t possibly have had much impact on crime because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban.

In another development that will not please the gun ban crowd, the leader of the Border Patrol Union, T.J. Bonner, said he was “underwhelmed” by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s plans to secure the border and went on to debunk the idea that Mexican violence is caused by American guns: “The U.S. has more weapons but we don’t have that kind of violence in our streets,” he said.

American gun owners know that that the real solution to the border violence is to actually secure the border. Shifting the focus to gun laws is nothing more than a calculated attack on our Second Amendment rights.

For more information on the hearings, please go to www.nraila.org.

Greater Gun Rights Battles Looming‏

April 3, 2009
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

In March, both the U.S. House and Senate finished up work on a massive,
anti-gun $10 billion omnibus federal land bill.

The bill had been held up for over a year in large part due to GOA
members fighting for Second Amendment rights on federal land -- YOUR
land.

The Second Amendment has been null and void for many years on all land
controlled by the National Park Service (NPS).  While regulations
promulgated in the waning days of the Bush administration partially
reversed that gun ban, a federal judge recently blocked those rules from
taking effect.

GOA worked closely with pro-gun members of the House and Senate to add a
complete repeal of the NPS gun prohibition to the larger land bill.
While these efforts delayed passage of the bill, in the end the anti-gun
congressional leadership teamed up with "pro-gun" compromisers and
passed the measure without protecting the Second Amendment.

In an effort to appease gun owners, language was added to the bill to
protect hunting and fishing.  But, as GOA pointed out to the Congress,
the Founding Fathers did not pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred
honor to protect a recreational pastime.

The final attempt to protect the Second Amendment from NPS bureaucrats
came on a procedural vote in the House that would have made in order an
amendment, sponsored by pro-gun Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rob Bishop
(R-UT), to repeal the gun ban.  That motion failed by a vote of 242-180.

So now not only does the gun ban remain in place, the new bill greatly
expands the total amount of NPS land.  Since NPS-controlled parks and
trails also include many busy roadways, hundreds of thousands of gun
owners can unwittingly find themselves in violation of the gun ban
without even knowing they are on federal land.

Representatives Hastings and Bishop, along with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA),
have vowed to continue their efforts to wipe this unconstitutional gun
ban from the books.  In the Senate, Tom Coburn (R-OK) is also pushing
for the repeal of the anti-gun NPS regulations.

Gun Owners of America would like to thank the thousands upon thousands
of email subscribers who repeatedly contacted their congressmen in this
battle to protect the Second Amendment.  We were sold out by
compromisers this time, but we will "remember in November" 
those who
voted against the Second Amendment.

Please help spread the word so we can get even more people contacting
their elected officials.  As the late Senator Everett Dirksen said,
"When I feel the heat, I see the light."

And do we ever need to turn up the heat!

Many important battles for your Second Amendment rights lay before us.
For instance, Barack Obama and his anti-gun cronies are making a massive
push to renew the Clinton semi-auto ban.

The President and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, are blaming the
current violence among Mexican drug cartels on firearms from the United
States.  This is another blatant attempt by anti-gun advocates to use
whatever situation they can find to further erode your Second Amendment
rights.

The problems of corruption and violence in Mexico should not be used as
an excuse to curtail your right to keep and bear arms.  But once again
law-abiding American gun owners are in danger of being punished for the
criminal actions of others.

The Clinton gun ban is just one of the attacks that you and GOA will be
fighting.

There is also a massive anti-gun bill in Congress, H.R. 45, that
includes universal gun owner licensing and registration, and the Obama
White House continues its efforts to ban private firearms transactions
at gun shows.

You can help us reach out to even more gun owners.   Please forward this
message to your friends and encourage them to sign up for the GOA email
alerts.

And if you haven't already become a member of GOA, consider joining.
For a small amount of money such as $35, $50 or $100, you can join with
other Americans to save our Constitutional rights.  Visit
www.gunowners.org to join GOA today.

Thank you again for being part of the GOA team working to protect
American liberty.
 

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

April 3, 2009

EXCLUSIVE: You’ve heard this shocking “fact” before — on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

– CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

– California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

– William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that “there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.”

There’s just one problem with the 90 percent “statistic” and it’s a big one:

It’s just not true.

In fact, it’s not even close. By all accounts, it’s probably around 17 percent.

What’s true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency’s assistant director, “is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S.”

Full Story Here:
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of G

Well, well, well! The BATF is lying concerning the numbers. Eric Holder and Company are liars too, using skewed figures in their desire to reinstate the AWB and take guns from the hands of lawful, sane and responsible gun owners. Who’d a thunk it.

I have said it, nearly all gun bloggers have said it, the drug lords in Mexico are NOT going to get their guns and explosive ordinance from the USA when they can buy it, unhindered, on the world market and through black market sources in Central and South America.

This is vindication of the American gun owner. Now we need to watch very closely and see if any other MSM news sources pick up on this, and watch the Attorney General himself. This could set that unstable asshat of on a campaign of vindication, with American gun owners as HIS target.

Thanks to FOXNews and their reporters for this, great work folks, and much needed as well!

SOURCE

Well, we told you so…

April 3, 2009
Health Plan Threatens to Feed Your Gun-related Data Into a National
Database
--- And charge you $10,000 a year for the privilege

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, April 2, 2009

In a year when trillion dollar bailouts have become routine, many
Americans have become almost numb to our acceleration towards socialism.

But gun rights activists aren't in that crowd, and so GOA has to inform
you of yet ANOTHER threat to your privacy, the Second Amendment, and
even your wallet.

It is called an "individual mandate" or, alternatively, the
"Massachusetts plan."  And over the weekend, both the 
Washington Post
and the New York Times worked hard to build momentum for it.

First, a little history.

We alerted you a few weeks ago to the gun control provisions in the
stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February.  Our government
will now spend between $12 and $20 BILLION to require the medical
community to retroactively put our most confidential medical records
into a government database -- a database that could easily be used to
deny veterans (and other law-abiding Americans) who have sought
psychiatric treatment for things such as PTSD.

Currently, gun owners can avoid getting caught in this database by
refusing to purchase health insurance or by purchasing insurance with a
carrier that has not signed an agreement with the government to place
your records in a national database.

But that's all about to change.  A budget resolution -- to be voted on
this Friday in the Senate -- will be the first domino in a process that
could FORCE you to buy government-approved insurance, thus making it
impossible to avoid the medical database.

Put another way:  If you do not have health insurance -- or,
potentially, if you do not have the TYPE of health insurance the
government wants you to have -- the government will force you to
purchase what it regards as "acceptable" health insurance.  
And, in most
cases, you will have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

What would all this cost?  Based on comparable insurance currently on
the market, it could cost $10,000 a year -- or more.

If you were jobless, the socialists would probably spot you the ten
grand.  But if you are middle class and can't pay $10,000 because of
your mortgage payments, your small business, or your kids' college
education, you would be fined (over $1,000 a year currently in
Massachusetts).  And, if you couldn't pay the confiscatory fine, you
could ultimately be imprisoned.

Scary, you say.  But why is this a Second Amendment issue?  Under the
Massachusetts plan, your MANDATED insurance carrier has to feed your
medical data into a centralized database -- freely accessible by the
government under federal privacy laws.

So... remember when your pediatrician asked your kid if you have a
firearm in the home?  Or when your dad was given a prescription for
Zoloft because of his Alzheimer's?  Or when your wife mentioned to her
gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago?

All of this would be in a centralized database.  And all of it could
potentially be used to vastly expand the "prohibited persons" list
maintained by the FBI in West Virginia.

How serious a threat is this?

If it gets into the budget resolution the Senate will consider on
Friday, it will be almost impossible to strip out later. It will be as
much of a done-deal as the stimulus package was.

We have asked senators to introduce language to prohibit such an
individual mandate for socialized medicine that would violate the
privacy of gun owners. In the absence of such an amendment, we are
asking senators to vote against the budget resolution.

ACTION:  Write your U.S. Senators.  Urge them to vote against the budget
resolution if it does not contain language prohibiting a mandate that
Americans buy government-approved health insurance against their will.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

A budget resolution that could end up requiring Americans to purchase
expensive health insurance policies against their will is truly
frightening.

And equally alarming is the fact that such mandated health care coverage
could easily become a shill for gun control.

Potentially, anyone who does not have health insurance-- or does not
have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants them to have --
will be forced to purchase "acceptable" health insurance and 
pay for it
out of our own pockets.

Based on the cost of comparable insurance currently on the market, that
could cost $10,000 a year -- or more.

That's bad enough. But far worse, such a "Massachusetts Plan" would
MANDATE that an insurance carrier feed medical data into a centralized
database -- freely accessible by the government under federal privacy
laws.

Hence, a kid's statement to his pediatrician about his parents'
firearms... or a dad's prescription for Zoloft because of his
Alzheimer's... or a wife's statement to her gynecologist about her
regular use of marijuana ten years ago... could all turn up in a federal
database and unconstitutionally expand the list of "prohibited 
persons."
Individuals would have no ability to opt out.

For all of these reasons, if the budget resolution does not contain
language prohibiting an "individual mandate" regarding health 
care, I
would ask that you oppose the budget resolution.

Sincerely,