Yes, it’s still on the burner. The newsletter is all but impossible to re-post here due to formats and other conflicts that I have not been able to figure out yet, but? I’ll give it a shot.
info@secondamendmentmarch.com.
Well, so much for that… Try the links above to view the newsletter, or to sign up for it!
From the bastion of freedom and free markets in Golden, Colorado!
Save The Date: Can you believe it, the Independence Institute turns 25 years young this year!! So save the date and book your seats now for our 25th Annual Founders’ Night Dinner with keynote speaker P.J. O’Rourke…it’s going to be huge! That’s Thursday, November 19th at the Infinity Park International Ballroom in Glendale, CO. Details and RSVP info here. Or you can call Mary at (303) 279-6536, or email her at mary@i2i.org. Hurry, this event is filling up fast.
He’s Not My Doctor! Remember those anti-Bush bumper stickers that read, “He’s not my President”? Well, I am pleased to announce that we at the Independence Institute recently debuted our new awesomely awesome “He’s Not My Doctor” bumper stickers. If you’d like to show the world that Obama is not your doctor, email Mary MacFarlane at mary@i2i.org and send her your name, address, and primary email account, and we’ll send you a brand spanking new bumper sticker – free of charge! PS – Due to the overwhelming demand, please limit your requests to just 2 per household. Thanks!
Free Our Health Care: Our brilliant Health Care Policy Center director Linda Gorman alerted me to a couple great health care links. First, we have the Free Our Health Care Now online petition, that some 732,000-plus people have already signed. Let’s help spread the word to our elected officials that we do not want a government takeover of our health care. As much as some may want to see doctor’s offices resembling the DMV, I prefer that didn’t happen.
Second, we’ve got the Conservatives for Patient’s Rights website, which has a large amount of important links and resources.
And of course don’t forget our Patient Power Now blog, written mostly by health care policy analyst Brian Schwartz, with special guest appearances by Linda Gorman herself. Be sure to check out the John Goodman Health Policy Blog, where Linda is a featured writer.
Must Hear Podcast: Over at ivoices.org Jon Caldara sits down with Dave Kopel to discuss free speechand some of the historical limiters to speech, leading all the way to McCain-Feingold of present day. There is a new challenge to McCain-Feingold headed to the courts. How does Dave think it will turn out? Give a listen here.
Must See TV: Want to know who’s up and who’s down in Colorado’s political races? How about the ongoing efforts to close a state budget gap? Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels and Tim Hoover join host Jon Caldara for an end of summer wrap up of state polics and the budget debate. Tune in this Friday night at 8:30 pm to KBDI Channel 12; repeated the following Monday afternoon at 1:30 p.m..
Perspective: Ben DeGrow from the Education Policy Center thinks northeast Denver’s demand for more schools deserves some outside the box solutions. Check out his latest, “Stapleton School Shortage Needs Creative Thinking.”
Until next week…
Straight on
Jon Caldara
Seems that Madame Speaker is concerned. Concerned about what? Losing her job perhaps? I seriously doubt that, but the Golden State of my birth has a notoriously fickle electorate. Even in the Bay Area at times. However, as I stated, I doubt it. What she probably does have valid fear about is quite simply what she, and those like her have done that could provoke some to resort to violence as a means of secession. Her astounding support of anti liberty legislation may only be topped by Frank Lautenberg, Chuck Schumer, and the late Ted Kennedy. I would speculate that the only reason for that would be her relative newness to Washington.
Nancy apparently wants to blame all these troubles on race and “astro turf.” Why not be honest Nancy? Why not point out your horrible record when it comes to sexism via legislated mysandry, your taxation policy votes, and yes, your rabid hate for the Bill of Rights? Then after you realize that you have been one of the most detrimental people ever to serve in office at any level we can give voice to all those that never had a chance to live because of you and your support for mass murdering profiteers…
Read on…
By LAURIE KELLMAN (AP) – 46 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama’s health care reform effort is concerning because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.
Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.
“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. “This kind of rhetoric was very frightening” and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.
Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted of the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and openly gay supervisor Harvey Milk. Gay rights activists and some others at the time saw a link between the assassinations and the violent debate over gay rights that had preceded them for years.
During a rambling confession, White was quoted as saying, “I saw the city as going kind of downhill.” His lawyers argued that he was mentally ill at the time. White committed suicide in 1985.
Pelosi is part of a generation of California Democrats on whom the assassinations had a searing effect. A resident of San Fransisco, Pelosi had been a Democratic activist for years and knew Milk and Moscone. At the time of their murders, she was serving as chairwoman of her party in the northern part of the state.
On Thursday, Pelosi was answering a question about whether the current vitriol concerned her. The questioner did not refer to the murders of Milk or Moscone, or the turmoil in San Francisco three decades ago. Pelosi referenced those events on her own and grew uncharacteristically emotional.
“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.
“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”
Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco.
The public anger during health care town hall meetings in August spilled into the House last week when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at Obama, the nation’s first black president, during his speech. On a largely party-line vote, the House reprimanded Wilson.
Fellow blogger extraordinaire Afrocity has a wonderful piece up today that is a must read. Citing the false accusations or back door affirmations that the world is, in effect ruled by racism rather than honest disagreement with positions and policy’s of the current administration. She tears down the walls of misconception in a way that, simply put, I am unable to do. Then, in my inbox up pops this. Ten gallon Hat tip to Texas Fred for this;
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Corbin Casteel
September 16, 2009 (512) 482-0682 Office
wcc@WilliamsForTexas.com
Statement by Commissioner Michael Williams, a Republican candidate for the United States Senate, concerning former President Jimmy Carter’s
recent comments about critics of President Obama:
“I have immense respect for President Carter, but I fundamentally disagree with the notion that opponents of President Obama’s immense spending proposals are motivated by race. As a black man from the South, I take exception to the notion that my opposition – or the opposition of millions of Americans to the president’s healthcare proposal – is rooted in racial politics. It is a sad day when genuine disagreement is smeared by such an incendiary characterization. I oppose the president’s plan because it will explode the deficit, allow further government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship, and continue to insulate healthcare consumers from the true cost of their care.
“America has come a long way on the issue of race, so much so that we elected the first black president in the history of our country. The president’s supporters seem to want to denigrate the motives of the opposition so they don’t have to actually engage in a debate about reforms that will forever change the direction of this country.
“It is no coincidence as the liberals continue to lose public support for a budget-busting healthcare plan that they have begun a seemingly orchestrated effort to change the subject from the content of the reforms to the character of their opposition. From the former president of the United States, to the opinion pages of the New York Times, a new ugliness has permeated our discourse. I say to them that I can disagree with my president based on the politics of ideas rather than the politics of identity.
“Americans who have honest concerns about increasing government control of healthcare, and the overall direction of this nation, deserve answers instead of scorn, respect instead of reviling accusations of racism. If this president is going to change the tone in Washington, he better first change the tactics of his supporters.”
The United nations attempt at undermining the Constitution of the United States is nothing new. What is new is a freedom detesting, America hating, foreign apologist sitting in the Whitehouse that is surrounded by like minded individuals.
The Obamanites may not be able to garner support for their radical anti liberty agenda in Congress, but what they can do is ram a treaty through, and them have the Supreme Court enforce the provisions of the treaty.
Effectively disarming the American people at a time when foreign cartels fuel lethal gang activity across the country, and terrorist walk among us. Not to mention that they are armed to the hilt. Often with weaponry that is in fact denied to American citizens already. Read on…
Conventional arms control, United Nations-style, won’t stem the proliferation of guns that get into the wrong hands. More likely, it will only make bad situations worse.
The United States was one of only two nations that voted against the U.N. resolution last year. Its support among member states could advance a legally binding U.N. treaty creating “common international standards” for the import and export of small arms and light weapons.
The trouble is, rogue nations and thugs don’t subscribe to “international standards.” Worse, a “right-to-buy” provision would enable despots to acquire arms freely and inhibit U.S. enforcement of its own arms embargoes against 26 states and/or entities.
And how would a U.N. gun treaty keep weapons away from world terrorists when, as yet, U.N. members haven’t defined exactly what constitutes terrorism?
“The problem is not the absence of an arms trade treaty. It is the U.N. members that are supplying and buying arms, conniving with terrorists and killing people directly,” according to a Heritage Foundation analysis.
Iran and Venezuela both fit the bill. And China and Russia — which abstained on the U.N. resolution — are leading suppliers to the world’s worst regimes.
The U.S. should speak up, and loudly, against a U.N. arms-trade treaty that isn’t merely ineffective but is bound to backfire.
Something tells me that this elitist known as Cass Sunstein is going to become an ongoing theme here. Time will tell, but it sure looks that way. He stands for just about everything everyday Americans dislike, and he appears to hate the things that those same Americans love. Maybe I should add a new category? Czar Wars?
Sales of firearms in the United States have skyrocketed since November 4, 2008. It’s no secret the election of Barrack Obama to the highest office in the free world caused grave concern among gun owners.
Liberals scoff at the notion that Obama would attempt to disarm the United States population. However, this is the man who can be heard in an address to a group in San Francisco on a clandestine recording say, in reference to rural America, “…they cling to their guns and their religion.”
Perhaps Obama isn’t making any speeches about disrupting the lifestyle of rural America these days, but he’s certainly putting people in place to do it for him. The number one candidate for that kind of hit work on sportsmen in the United States is Cass Sunstein. Sunstein is a professor from Harvard University, who formerly worked with Obama at the University of Chicago. He’s now tapped to become head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Sunstein’s nomination raises the hackles of sportsmen’s groups nationwide. He’s widely known for a blatant disdain for the Second Amendment. He’s even more passionate about animal rights, so much so, he advocates the rights of animals to be granted protected status in the nation’s courts. More to the point, he believes animals should have the right to sue people. He’s on the record in favor of an end to all hunting.
A few short years ago, people like Sunstein existed, but rarely were in positions of power. They were people who took such amazingly over the top positions, but were generally regarded as freakish and weird. Such is the danger of the Obama appointment. If confirmed as “Regulatory Czar” to the White House, Sunstein would become the gatekeeper for White House policy for the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. A man who’s an avowed hater of hunting and guns would be writing the fine print in the Obama Administration’s policies for how those federal agencies would create rules and restrictions.
Wondering how that affects you?
The FBI and ATF are the key agencies who deal with albeit limited regulation of firearms ownership. There is still the Second Amendment. However, they conduct the instant background checks and make the decision on whether you are of legal status to buy a gun—or not.
Moreover, the oversight with Department of the Interior is vast. The agency controls millions of acres of public lands now open for hunting. How long it will last under such leadership is a mystery. The National Park Service falls under Interior’s purview. Already, the Obama Administration has moved toward removing all lead bullets and fishing tackle from Park Service property. Presently regulation covers Park Service employees only, but there’s a clear desire by higher ups to extend such restrictions to public users.
Where does this end? Coalitions of sportsmen and conservation groups have teamed to battle Sunstein’s confirmation in the Senate. The US Sportsman’s Alliance and National Wild Turkey Federation are leading the charge and lobbying heavily on the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus to close ranks and oppose the nomination. Those two groups are backed by a host of other organizations who convinced one Senator, Republican Johnny Isackson of Georgia, to push for a “hold” on the nomination.
The Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus is a coalition of Congressional members, both Democrat and Republican, who align themselves in defense of issues threatening hunting, fishing, trapping, shooting, and other such activities. Sadly, the CSC’s clout appears to be withering.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a vote, over the objections of those constituency groups, to end debate of Sunstein’s nomination. Twenty-two of the 63 Senators who voted in favor of cutting off debate were members of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus, including U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. Senator Robert Byrd is not a member of the CSC, but also voted in favor of ending debate and moving the nomination forward.
“We are disappointed with the outcome of tonight’s vote, especially that so many members of the Senate claiming to be pro-sportsman voted in favor of a nominee who has expressed that recreational hunting could be banned,” stated USSA President and CEO Bud Pidgeon through a press release. “Nonetheless, the USSA and our partners had an obligation to fight this appointment. Sportsmen all across America will clearly be able to see which senators, along with Sen. Isakson, were willing to stand up for them.”
Sunstein doesn’t have the job yet, but this week’s vote was a strong indication he’s looking more and more likely to be the man wielding power over rules governing hunting, fishing, and firearms ownership in the near future. If confirmed, he would answer only to his boss, President Obama and not to the millions of sportsmen and women across the United States.
Still wondering why the firearms industry has been thriving while the rest of nation’s industries have been stalled amid the recession?
update to the story; I believe that this whack job was in fact confirmed.
When is half a glass is better than no glass? McCain Feingold was, and remains, a constitutional nightmare irrespective of how this case turns out. Read on…
During Wednesday’s extraordinary Supreme Court oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, some of the more remarkable moments came when Justice John Paul Stevens repeatedly referred, with approval, to a brief filed in the case by the National Rifle Association. Not a pairing you might expect, but Stevens saw in the brief a possible way to rule on the case narrowly, without totally upending major Court precedents on corporate and union spending in election campaigns.
The NRA brief, authored by Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk in D.C., joined the opponents of spending restrictions by agreeing with Citizens United that the precedents, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and a section of McConnell v. FEC, should be overturned. But Cooper also suggested a more limited alternative that caught Stevens’ eye: reversing those precedents only to the extent that they permit the government to restrict campaign spending by non-profit advocacy groups — like the NRA, he said — that use individual donations to fund political speech. That would have the effect of striking down the so-called Wellstone Amendment in the McCain-Feingold law, which included such non-profit groups in the ban on campaign spending. Cooper says the amendment was specifically aimed at keeping the NRA from using its treasury funds in campaigns, and sticks out like an “unconstitutional sore thumb.” By excising the Wellstone Amendment from the law, Cooper said, the Court would strike a blow for the First Amendment and allow “non-profit groups like the NRA, the Sierra Club, and the ACLU, to speak to their hearts’ content” during campaigns.
“I’m delighted that the points we made got Justice Stevens’ attention, or any other members of the Court,” said Cooper. Asked in jest if the NRA would welcome the liberal Stevens as a member, Cooper laughed and said, “With open arms, I am sure.”
Stevens first cited the NRA solution just as Citizens United’s lawyer Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher was ending his time at the podium. “No one has commented” on the NRA brief, Stevens said, but he was bringing it up in response to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s suggestion earlier that “there are narrow ways of resolving the problem before us.” Stevens asked Olson if he would comment on the brief during his rebuttal, and after some back and forth, Olson said he would do so.
Next, Stevens raised the NRA brief in a question to Olson’s adversary Solicitor General Elena Kagan. In response, she allowed that Citizens United is “an atypical plaintiff” as an ideological non-profit corporation, but the discussion took another turn before she fully answered Stevens’ question. Stevens came back to it again, and ultimately Kagan acknowledged that striking down the Wellstone Amendment would be “certainly a narrower and I think better solution” than invalidating the entire statute that pertains to corporate and union spending.
When Olson rose again for his rebuttal, Stevens soon asked him again about the NRA brief. Earlier in the case Olson had shifted the case into high gear by explicitly asking the Court to overturn the Austin and McConnell precedents. The oral argument to that point had clearly put that goal within reach, so Olson was not, it appeared, settling for a half- or quarter-loaf.
“It would not solve the problem,” said Olson, adding that even without the Wellstone Amendment his client might still be covered by the law. To nail down the point, Stevens persisted: “You do not endorse the NRA’s position?” To which Olson replied, “No we don’t.”
In an interview Cooper stressed that his preference, like Olson’s, would be to overturn Austin and McConnell broadly. “That’s an argument we have made robustly,” Cooper said. But the narrower solution, he said, would serve his client’s interest, as well as that of other non-profit advocacy groups, without disturbing the restrictions on the main target of campaign legislation: business corporations. “With a group like ours, our purpose is advocacy,” said Cooper. “It’s not the cash register, it’s the ballot box.” The First Amendment, he said, should not stifle such speech.
Footnote: Cooper did not attend the argument Wednesday. He was in California at the time, working with his clients, supporters of Proposition 8 which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that would have allowed same-sex marriage. One of his adversaries in the litigation over the proposition: Ted Olson.
In addition to this there is a very good course at the DOW about Mountain Lions. See link at the end;
MONTROSE, Colo.– The Colorado Division of Wildlife will be holding meetings to discuss the upcoming lion hunting season in the research area on the south end of the Uncompahgre Plateau in portions of Game Management Units (GMUs) 61, 62, and 70.
Discussion will include quotas, season dates, a permit system for the research area and how hunters can participate in the research effort. As time allows, biologists will discuss lion management outside of the research area.
The meetings are aimed at mountain lion hunters. General lion information will not be discussed. Mountain lion hunters are invited to ask questions and discuss issues with DOW staff.
The first meeting will be at 7 p.m., Sept. 16 at the Delta Montrose Electric Association building in Montrose, 11925 6300 Rd. The second meeting will be at 7 p.m., Sept. 17 at the Redvale Community Center in Redvale.
For more information, especially if you cannot attend the meeting, contact Brad Banulis or Ken Logan at the Montrose DOW office at (970)252-6000.
For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.
Quote of the Day: “There are some bills we don’t need to read, we already know how we’re going to vote.” – Rep. Henry Brown
Does DownsizeDC.org agree or disagree with this statement? The answer may surprise you . . .
Subject: Clearing up a misconception about the Read the Bills Act
The partisans on both sides are using “reading the bill” as a sign of moral superiority. They’re jabbing each other over who’s read the healthcare bill more carefully, as the Joe Wilson controversy indicates.
As originators of the Read the Bills meme, we consider this a sign of progress. It means that public pressure in support of our idea is both working and growing. Now, if only the Democrats and Republicans in Congress would stop using our idea to grandstand, and would instead pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act (RTBA)!
But the debate over which side has read the healthcare bill more carefully raises a question: should members of Congress who intend to vote AGAINST a bill still be required to read every word of it?
We think it would be helpful for them to do so, especially when it comes to debating why the bill should be defeated, but we don’t think those who intend to vote NO on a bill should be required to read it.
No one needs to justify opposing a bill that will invade your life, your liberty, or your property. Opponents don’t have to prove they know every clause and subsection.
One bad clause may be sufficient to put down the bill and go vote against it.
The onus is always on those who support a bill to justify it.
This gives us an opportunity to clear up a common misconception among members of Congress . . .
Several of them think that DownsizeDC.org’s RTBA would require all members to read every word of every bill that comes to a vote. It doesn’t. It only requires those who vote in favor of a bill to have signed an affadavit affirming they have read the bill, or heard it read.
Those who oppose a bill because they think its key points are bad, aren’t asked to sweat the details.
The RTBA’s purpose is to force a bill’s supporters to have a basic knowledge of what it is they’re passing. This basic knowledge can only come from reading the bill. This simple requirement would . . .
* Prevent politicians from blithely supporting bills just because they sound like they have good intentions
* Require politicians to take responsibility for their vote — they could no longer hide behind the excuse that they “didn’t know that was in the bill”
* Make politicians more concerned to make sure that a nice-sounding bill won’t have unintended consequences
We therefore agree with the Quote of the Day above — at least in one sense. If Representative Brown already knows he’s going to oppose a bill, the RTBA won’t require him to read it. But he, and all members of Congress, must read every bill they intend to support.
Use your personal comments to tell them that, contrary to their possible misconception, the RTBA only requires them to read bills they support, not bills they oppose. Also remind them that if they pass the healthcare bill without reading it first, they will pay a steep political price.
You can send your letter to Congress here.
Thank-you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast your Army is growing, please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.
James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org
KEEPING SCORE REPORT
Your Downsize DC Army grew by 22 net new members since our last report. This brings our total growth for the year to 3,802. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 28,148, nearly 15% of the way between 28,000 and 29,000.
Gun Hater Lautenberg Proposes “Extraordinary Powers” Be Given To the U.S. Attorney General To Limit Gun Sales.
Obama and the White House are looking the other way as Lautenberg seeks to ban guns from 1,000,000 US citizens on a secret FBI terrorist watch list. Obama has deliberately and repeatedly lied to America’s 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone’s firearms. Now Obama’s silence endorses Lautenberg’s latest attempt at banning guns.
Lautenberg has now introduced bill S. 1317 that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. We must defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.
Lautenberg To Reveal Names on Secret List
The names of the people on the watch list are secret, and Lautenberg said he was frustrated by the F.B.I.’s refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data.
Gun hater Lautenberg requested the gun grab study from the Government Accountability Office. He is using statistics, compiled in the report that is scheduled for public release next week to invade US citizen’s privacy and put more restrictions on the Second Amendment.
Lautenberg said he wanted a better understanding of who is being allowed to buy guns.
How you ask? Trial by innuendo and misinformation that has put 1,000,000 Americans and maybe even you on a terrorist watch list without your knowledge by saying: people placed on this government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, and will also be stopped from buying a gun.
Lautenberg wants gun purchases stopped for just being on the list. Current law states federal officials must find some other disqualification of a would-be gun buyer, like being a felon, an illegal alien or a drug addict.
Is your name on the list and can you get it removed?
The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has grown to more than one million names since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It also has drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and unclear links to terrorism.
A CNN story raises questions about mistaken identities on the list – James Robinson is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general and a commercial pilot for a major airline who flies passenger planes around the country.
James Robinson is a retired brigadier general and a commercial pilot. His name is on the terrorist “watch list.”
He has even been certified by the Transportation Security Administration to carry a weapon into the cockpit as part of the government’s defense program should a terrorist try to commandeer a plane.
But there’s one problem: James Robinson, the pilot, has difficulty even getting to his plane because his name is on the government’s terrorist “watch list.”
That means he can’t use an airport kiosk to check in; he can’t do it online; he can’t do it curbside. Instead, like thousands of Americans whose names match a name or alias used by a suspected terrorist on the list, he must go to the ticket counter and have an agent verify that he is James Robinson, the pilot, and not James Robinson, the terrorist.
“Shocking’s a good word; frustrating,” Robinson — the pilot — said. “I’m carrying a weapon, flying a multimillion-dollar jet with passengers, but I’m still screened as, you know, on the terrorist watch list.”
History Repeating Itself?
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”
Lautenberg Must be Stopped
Recently Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation’s “gun show loophole.”
This Senate bill is in the Judiciary Committee, chaired by anti-gun liberal Democrat Leahy. Lautenberg’s gun hate is well documented and he says you are irrational if you support private gun sales.
“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington” Sen. Lautenberg said ignoring the Constitution.
Lautenberg and the Gun Grabbers in the Senate are now tying to use the GAO to justify putting Americans on a secret gun ban list.
LAUTENBERG’S MOTIVES
Motives for his latest gun ban to are twofold:
- First, he is taking small steps to enact gun control legislation this is just one step.
- Second, eradicate the gun culture altogether.
All that seems to be on the minds of the Anti-Gun Senators and at the offices of gun control extremists is figuring out how to invade your privacy to erode and eventually destroy the right, and the means, of self-defense.
Now the Anti-Gun Coalitions are trying to use a self supporting GAO study to destroy the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms to protect themselves under the law. They are attacking and hiding behind an Anti-Terrorist Agenda while getting political and financial support from:
George Soros a Hungarian-born billionaire bank rolling efforts with his check book and spending more that $100 million to destroy the Constitution.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) admitted that “guns would be banned and confiscated” if she could have her way.
The United Nations actively pushes globalism seeking to disarm all Americans.
We must Stop the Anti-Gun Coalition and get ready for the biggest gun control fight of the year from coast to coast. We can not do that without your support.
Stand up against this attack! Stand up for the right to not only defend yourself, but to defend your family, your children, your friends, and your classmates!
Like all other threats against our freedoms, we must rise and defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.
In order to stop Lautenberg and his fellow gun-grabbers-we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone.
Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation…and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands.
So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution.
Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU’RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!
CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS.
DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators right away!
Source: CCRKBA without all the spam…
 | Patrick Sperry on On Not so civil wars… |
 | TexasFred on Guest commentary… |
 | MaddMedic on Guest commentary… |
| Patrick Sperry on The Stupid runs deep… |
| Patrick Sperry on Math for planning in the comin… |
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 