Archive for the ‘Hoplophobia’ Category

Call them what they are: Supporters of carnage.

February 23, 2017

For the Wyoming Senate — which holds itself out to be amoungst the most pro-gun legislative bodies in the country –- to crush these bills would be outrageous.

HB 136, HB 137

The following Senators, in particular, need to hear from you before they vote on these bills. Please contact Senators
:

>>>  Affie Ellis, Affie.Ellis@wyoleg.gov, (307) 287-9095

>>>  Bruce Burns, Bruce.Burns@wyoleg.gov, (307) 672-6491

>>>  Bill Landen, Bill.Landen@wyoleg.gov, (307) 237-4067

>>>  Stephan Pappas, Stephan.Pappas@wyoleg.gov, (307)      630-7180

>>>  Michael Von Flatern, Michael.VonFlatern@wyoleg.gov,      (307) 680-4744

>>>  Dave Kinskey, Dave.Kinskey@wyoleg.gov, (307)      751-6428

>>>  Jeff Wasserburger, Jeff.Wasserburger@wyoleg.gov,      (307) 680-2943

>>>  Drew Perkins, Drew.Perkins@wyoleg.gov, (307)      315-6177

>>>  Tara Nethercott, Tara.Nethercott@wyoleg.gov, (307)      399-7696

>>>  Glenn Moniz, glenn.moniz@wyoleg.gov, (307) 760-1116

>>>  James Anderson, jameslee.anderson@wyoleg.gov, (307)      267-5775

>>>  Fred Baldwin, Fred.Baldwin@wyoleg.gov, (307)      877-3687

>>>  Dan Dockstader, Dan.Dockstader@wyoleg.gov, (307)      885-9705

>>>  Ray Peterson, Ray.Peterson@wyoleg.gov, (307)      548-6405

Remember, the Senate has killed gun bills for five years!

Five years of obstruction, while state after state has passed pro-gun bills.

No amendments, no excuses, period!

Wyoming Gun Owners

Wyoming Politics:Bloodbaths and carnage Trojan Horse Amendments.

February 1, 2017
HB 194 is a Trojan Horse designed to create free fire zones so that people can be butchered. A vote in favor of HB 194 is a vote for carnage either as a stand alone bill, or as an amendment. Support and co – sponsor HB 136 with no amendments.
 Contact your state Representatives and Senators now!

I need you to pick up the phone and call your Representative right now — and insist he support HB136 with no weakening amendments and oppose HB194!

(Not sure who your representative is — click here to find out.)

1.   You can call the House switchboard and they’ll      connect you automatically based on your address. The      number to call is (866)-996-8683.

2.   You can also email your legislator; a list of their      emails can be seen here.

3.   Of course, most of them are on Facebook and can      receive messages. So feel free to send them a message      that way, too.

This is a new era in Wyoming.

The people have sent new leadership to Cheyenne and we can’t let them chip away at the Second Amendment as their first order of business!

We can’t let them set the precedence that the Second Amendment is something to be tinkered with.

Please stand with us and act fast!

For Freedom,
David Ball
President
P.S. Both good AND bad gun bills are moving in Cheyenne!

Thanks to you, both HB136 and HB 137 “Campus Carry” and “Repeal Gun Free Zones” have passed the first full House vote and are scheduled to be heard again this week
.

Unfortunately, the House also passed Rep. Eklund’s “Trojan Horse” gun bill — HB194 — as well, which would gut any meaningful “Campus Carry” legislation by allowing each school district to set their own policies and by publishing the names of gun owners who carry on campus!

I need your help right away!

Please contact your legislator now — using the information above — and tell him to vote “NO!” on HB194, whether on the floor or if it’s filed as an amendment
!

California Peace Officers: Thank the L. A. Times

October 25, 2016

The Los Angeles Times is working to disarm not just the peons, but everyone, and yes, that includes Peace Officers. In collusion with their masters they want us all to be their boot lickers. Personally, I think that it is well past the time to take these weasels out into the street, horse whip them until they are naked, then tar and feather them, and then hang them, and dump their worthless bodies into the Pacific. That goes for every lunatic politician from governor moonbat on down. Yes, that includes LEO’s that have violated their oaths.

Full story HERE

And about that pesky 2ed Amendment…

September 29, 2016

This is stolen from a Facebook Friend Cary Cartter, who posted it as follows.

A blogging friend, Douglas Gibbs, teaches Constitutional Classes in California. Here’s his 2nd Amendment guide:

Lesson 14

Militias and Standing Armies

2nd Amendment: Keep and Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility. Like anything else you own, if you give away your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can no longer exercise those rights.

In the Washington, D.C. v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

During the early years of the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The States have Original Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that. The argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.

Complacency, then, becomes our greatest enemy.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Understanding that the Framers expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights.

In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.

The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important, too. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Some will argue the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.

The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of unorganized militia, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.

The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void. Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and according to the 2nd Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If “shall not be infringed” applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all persons are allowed to possess a firearm. The words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.

The reason the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.

The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.

In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.

If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.

Breaking down the language used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.

The 2nd Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia.” The immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today’s culture recognizes it as meaning, “A militia under the control of the government,” or “regulated by government agencies,” or “managed by federal law.”

All of the above definitions are wrong.

As discussed regarding the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word “regulated” does not mean “controlled or restricted by government.” The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Webster defined regulated as: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that the word “regulate” in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of “regulated,” revealing that today’s most common definition was the “least used” definition during the time of the writing of the United States Constitution.

Since “regulate” did not mean “to control and restrict,” but instead meant “to put in good order,” that means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.

The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes.

To put the militia in good order, Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow. The authority to Congress regarding this power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

The next part of the 2nd Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

The word State, in that instance, means “individual, autonomous, sovereign State.” In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a free Ohio, a free California, and so on.

“Necessary to the security of a free State.” A militia is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State. Security against whom? A foreign invader? Isn’t that what the standing army was supposed to be for? Why would States need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their “security,” and to ensure that security is for them to remain a “free State?”

Foreign enemies were a concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government. Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty years.

“… can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

The Declaration of Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against their government should it become tyrannical. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. How could it ever be logical that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first place?

Terms:
Arms – Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.

Collective Right – Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.

Declaration of Independence – The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July 4, 1776.

Individual Right – Rights held by individuals within a particular group.

Organized Militia – A well trained militia that is in good order that operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States; National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.

Original Authority – Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.

Regulated – To make regular; to put in good order.

State Sovereignty – The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

Unorganized Militia – Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Questions for Discussion:

1. In your opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?

2. If the courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear arms?

3. Is a militia necessary in today’s society? Why?

4. Why did the Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?

5. In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and States. How does that open up the opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?
Resources:

10 USC § 311 – Militia: Composition and Classes, Cornell University
Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

McDonald v. City of Chicago, United States Supreme Court:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution (Philadelphia 1787), The Federalist Papers: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/…/noah-webster-an-examin…

The Tree of Liberty Quotation, Monticello – TH: Jefferson Encyclopedia:
http://wiki.monticello.org/…/The_tree_of_liberty…(Quotati…

Washington, D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court of the United States Blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/

The Senate does the right thing, and Democrats can’t figure that out!

June 21, 2016

The Senate hammered proposed gun control laws, and Democrats simply cannot figure out that disarming Americans in the face of extreme danger isn’t the correct thing to do.

Listening to the news, and reading social media brings something to mind. Specifically, a bumper sticker that we got into trouble for placing on the ceiling of the ambulance. “Are you stoned, or just stupid?” Let’s go through the proposals.

On Terrorists: Who gets to choose who is a “terrorist?” Would that be the very same people that called many non leftest WordPress Bloggers “terrorists?” Along with others that simply disagree with these elitists..?

Background test expansion: Anyone with a brain knows that background tests simply do not work. They never have, and never will. A black market is already thriving in this nation for weapons that the average person does not, or can’t get access too. This simple fact of life also blows away the RINO proposal of a waiting period that allows a challenge for denial of a purchase.

Implementing even more restrictions on the rights and liberties of Americans will be met with the same success that our fabulous victory that The War on Drugs has racked up.

On that note? Have those that desire Americans to be helpless in the face of grave danger simply stoned from inhaling Unicorn Farts, or are they in fact guilty of treason? Or both..?

Make Americans helpless?

June 16, 2016

I need you to call your Senators right away and urge them to OPPOSE all the gun control legislation that may be voted on as early as today. 

You can reach your two Senators at 202-224-3121.

Please call the Capitol Switchboard at that above number and then ask to speak to your two Senators.

Making Americans helpless is not the proper answer for responding to terrorism. Any other response is treason, no excuses…

Words of wisdom from and internet friend

June 9, 2016

Here is a guest post from my wonderful friend Tex Reynolds, as fine a writer as you’re likely to find, a true Patriot and a staunch Conservative. 

Huffington Post writer defends riots at Trump rallies as ‘violent resistence’ (sic)

Is this “free speech”? There is a difference between being able to speak out on one’s beliefs and using violence to quash the rights of others.

According to Wikipedia:
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.

In the past seven years we have seen progressives use (abuse) semantics and twist the actual definitions of words, often using a word while meaning that word’s antonym. They use honesty meaning prevarication; transparency meaning secrecy; openness meaning obfuscation; work meaning golfing, compromise meaning capitulation; freedom meaning subservience; respect meaning disdain; and unity means division; etc. They accuse others of doing of acts that they, themselves are actually guilty.

Supposed journalists, those who should have a basic working knowledge and vocabulary ignore what it is occurring, instead using their bully pulpits slathering praise on those who would destroy America.

For decades we have witnessed the planned moral decline of this Nation.

We have allowed liberals to dominate our education system and dumb down the populace. We have allowed the eco-freaks to preserve our natural resources so that they now can be stolen by foreign entities. We have watched as multinational agro companies decimated our family farms so they could control food supplies and use those food supplies as weapons of power. We have watched politicians compromise principles and allow the watering down of our Constitution. We have watched a legal system that favors the rich, gives more rights to the criminals and ignores the victims.

We have watched faux preachers establish their private earthly kingdoms while ignoring the Heavenly Kingdom. We have watched our Country become a world joke and now we watch as the anarchists, the communists, the socials and provocateurs use violence to silence us.

Now there are people who are willing to stand up and resist the further destruction of our Nation, are you one of them? This country was founded on religious principles but designed NOT to be a theocracy. Stand up for America

SOURCE: http://www.texasfred.net/archives/29038

Supreme Court: Second Amendment protects “all bearable arms” – HUGE Victory for Gun Owners, Again!

March 23, 2016

We have been saying this for years. It would appear that others think along the very same lines!

Full Story

John Kasich: Anti-gun “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”

March 20, 2016

Comes word, from the Center for Responsive Politics, that Leftist billionaire George Soros, through his Soros Fund Management, is one of John Kasich’s top financial contributors.

This can hardly be a surprise.

Kasich and Soros share two important traits:  (1) their desire to mess up the Republican selection process for devious motives, and (2) their absolute hatred for the Second Amendment.

Kasich’s antipathy towards gun rights is no secret to anyone who’s watched his career.  Make no mistake about it:  When we are winning by a large margin — when we don’t need John Kasich’s vote — he’s usually there to give us a big, wet “Don Corleone kiss.”

But when the vote is close and the future of the Second Amendment is at stake, “Godfather John” usually leaves us a severed horsehead in our bed. 

Thus, Kasich famously joined a gaggle of fellow-RINO’s and cast the deciding vote to impose a ban on semi-auto firearms.  For this, he received a personal letter of thanks from a gun-hating Bill Clinton.

Kasich voted for background checks in 1993, a system where roughly 95% of denials are “false positives.” Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department has, since November, shifted FBI employees to insure that, if you’re illegally blocked by NICS from purchasing a firearm, you can never get your record corrected.

In 1999, Kasich voted to retain restrictive gun ban in Washington, D.C.  Not only that, Kasich joined the effort to pass 90% of Clinton’s anti-gun agenda as a form of “gun control lite.”

Elements of the Kasich/Clinton agenda included:

(1) Provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms;

(2) A gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and

(3) Mandates to require you to “lock up your guns.”

Had Clinton been successful in passing his post-Columbine anti-gun agenda, it would have provided a legislative platform which could easily have eviscerated the Second Amendment over the last decade-and-a-half.

But Kasich’s efforts to outlaw guns — drip-by-drip — continues to this day.

Kasich continues to be a chief advocate of actual or de facto amnesty, claiming that enforcing our immigration laws would be “inhumane.”

Of course, if Kasich gets his way, the legalization of 11 million illegals will have the same effect on the American electorate that the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty had on California. The country as a whole would become deep “anti-gun blue.”

And, of course, Kasich was one of the first RINO’s to legitimize the anti-gun ObamaCare program by bringing its massive Medicaid segment into his state.

Now, all it will take is for Obama to do a computer search of Kasich’s Medicaid beneficiaries for “PTSD,” “Alzheimer’s,” and other “mental defectives,” and the gun rights of tens of thousands of law-abiding Ohioans could be jeopardized.

And all of this was done by Kasich’s particularly nasty form of politics which he is now trying to morph, incredibly, into his “Mr. Nice” act. 

These actions, of course, reflect the hatred for guns by Kasich’s patron, George Soros.

You may remember that, when Soros launched his campaign of “exposes” designed to destroy the conservative movement piece-by-piece, his first target was Gun Owners of America — which Soros viewed as even more dangerous than the Koch brothers.

But perhaps as bad as Kasich’s anti-gun record is his determination to destroy the GOP selection process for personal gain.

Surely, even the vainglorious Kasich understands that, the longer he stays is the race, the longer the “divided field” makes it easier for an establishment candidate to hijack the process at the convention.

Polls have shown — here and here — that Ted Cruz would beat Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

But by becoming the REAL “chaos candidate,” Kasich helps destroy the Republican Party by throwing the nomination to someone who is despised by the grassroots. In so doing, Kasich does the bidding of his master, George Soros.

Ted Cruz would be the natural one to aggressively call out anti-gunner John Kasich for his anti-gun record.

Please contact Ted Cruz and urge him to expose Kasich.  Let’s not let Kasich pull the wool over the eyes of American voters.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Chairman
Gun Owners of America

P.S.  While you cannot use GOA’s Legislative Action Center to email Senator Ted Cruz — unless you are a constituent of his — you can easily contact him through his webform.

So simply copy-n-paste the pre-written letter below into Senator Ted Cruz’ webform and urge him to expose Senator John Kasich’s anti-gun record.

—– Pre-written letter for Sen. Ted Cruz —–

Dear Senator Cruz:

Thank you so much for your strong defense of the Constitution — and in particular, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Gun Owners of America has informed me that John Kasich has a long record of supporting gun control, including the following:

1) Kasich cast the deciding vote to impose a ban on semi-auto firearms, and for this, he received a personal letter of thanks from a gun-hating Bill Clinton.  See: tinyurl.com/hp4ucsp

2) Kasich voted for background checks in 1993, a system which is now blocking a percentage of legal gun purchases.  Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department has, since November, shifted FBI employees to insure that, if someone is illegally blocked by NICS from purchasing a firearm, they can never get their record corrected. See: tinyurl.com/hp4ucsp

3) In 1999, Kasich voted to retain restrictive gun ban in Washington, D.C.  See: tinyurl.com/zyljbep

4) Also in 1999, he voted for provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms; for a gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and for mandates to requiring people to “lock up their guns.”  See: tinyurl.com/jq84rcd

With John Kasich deciding to remain in the presidential race, I think it’s important for someone on the national level to expose his anti-gun votes.

I hope you will continue to point out Kasich’s anti-gun positions.

Sincerely,

 

7 myths…

February 16, 2016

Alright, it’s all starting again. So to speak… The anti liberty and freedom forces are back at it again as usual. Well, here is the best summation that I have found anywhere when it comes to understanding the debate about destroying your right to be able to properly and effectively defending yourself as well as others…

The Gun Control Debate.


%d bloggers like this: