Archive for the ‘mysandry’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Sullivan Act: Some History about Gun Control

June 27, 2009

The history of gun control is riddled with racism and corruption as well as outright deception. Based in elitism of one sort or another it is a subject worthy of soap opera drama that stirs the imagination.

One of the earliest examples is New York’s  Sullivan Act. Often pointed to by various advocates of the destruction of unalienable rights as some sort of morbid example of what those that know better than you do what you and your loved ones so desperately need it too is founded in corruption. One has to believe that Chuck Schumer and Frank Lautenberg both wish that they had written this law, and that their constant never ending attacks on liberty reflect that desire.

Some years or decades ago I researched and reported on the Sullivan Act, one of America’s first gun control laws.

New York state senator Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks, and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.

The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.

As the first successful gun control advocates were criminals, I have often wondered what agenda lies behind the well-organized and propagandistic gun control organizations and their donors and sponsors in the US today. The propaganda issued by these organizations consists of transparent lies.

Consider the propagandistic term, “gun violence,” popularized by gun control advocates. This is a form of reification by which inanimate objects are imbued with the ability to act and to commit violence. Guns, of course, cannot be violent in themselves. Violence comes from people who use guns and a variety of other weapons, including fists, to commit violence.

Nevertheless, we hear incessantly the Orwellian Newspeak term, “gun violence.”

Very few children are killed by firearm accidents compared to other causes of child deaths. Yet, gun control advocates have created the false impression that there is a national epidemic in accidental firearm deaths of children. In fact, the National MCH Center for Child Death Review, an organization that monitors causes of child deaths, reports that seven times more children die from drowning and five times more from suffocation than from firearm accidents. Yet we don’t hear of “drowning violence,” “swimming pool violence,” “bathtub violence,” or “suffocation violence.”

The National MCH Center for Child Death Review reports that 174 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2000. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reports that 125 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2006. In 2006 there were 77,845,285 youths in that age bracket.

Full Story

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Heller V. D.C. anniversary

June 27, 2009


Click here to vote in this week’s poll. Today, June 26, marks the one-year anniversary of the landmark D.C. v. Heller case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.  The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”

Yet despite this great victory, we can’t rest on our laurels. Those who would still deny our Second Amendment freedoms are always looking for ways to thwart our success and reverse that decision. And while the case affirmed that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government, and federal entities such as Washington, D.C., from banning handguns for self-defense, the decision did not resolve the separate question of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.

Piracy And The Right To Self Defense: Last month we reported on the arming of merchant mariners to allow them to defend their crews and ships from pirate attacks.  We noted that, with the increase in pirate attacks on the high seas, many are now realizing that firearms and armed citizens can be as effective a criminal deterrent at sea, as they are on land.

capitolPending Federal Legislation Needs Your Support: There are a number of pro-gun bills pending in Congress that require your attention and action.  Please review these legislative initiatives and be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and urge them to cosponsor and support these measures. Additional contact information can be found using the “Write Your Representatives” feature at www.NRAILA.org.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Gun Banner Confirmed — And The Truth About Legislation‏

June 27, 2009 
Eight Republicans Help Confirm a Hard-Core Gun Banner
-- And how to keep Senators from "spinning" their support for gun
control

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

"Too much work [was] left undone. After a few sleepless nights, I wrote
for myself a list of issues on which I needed to do more in the years
ahead. One of those issues was global regulation of small arms." --
Harold Hongju Koh (2001)

Friday, June 26, 2009

Imagine that.  The Senate confirmed this week, by a vote of 62-35, a gun
banner who stays up at night thinking of ways to impose more gun control
upon American citizens.

Harold Koh is that gun grabber, and he was confirmed yesterday to be the
Legal Adviser at the State Department.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans attempted to kill the Koh nomination
with a filibuster -- until eight of them crossed the aisle to help
Democrats confirm Koh.

The back-stabbing Senators are:  Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Susan Collins
(R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Mel
Martinez (R-FL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and George Voinovich (R-OH).

Once the filibuster was thwarted, Koh's nomination passed easily.  The
vote on final passage can be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/m4m2f5

Koh is eager to assume his post at the State Department, having lamented
that there is only so much that can be done from the outside to push gun
control treaties, and that ultimately we need people like him in
positions of power.  The chief lawyer for the State Department is just
the position someone like him needs to push more gun control through
international treaties.

GOA will continue watching for any attempt by the Obama administration
to foist an international gun control treaty upon the citizens of the
U.S.

Please stay tuned.

Don't Let Your Senators Escape the Heat of the Spotlight!

If you have been watching the news, you have no doubt seen stories on
the health care debate.  This is the topic de jour on Capitol Hill, and
Congress is ramping up to vote on a bill in a few weeks.

Last week, GOA alerted you to the fact that the whole health care issue
has become a Trojan Horse for gun control, among other things.

However, there are detractors who claim that the current health care
debate will have nothing to do with guns.  For example, GOA has been
"informed" that a search of the TeddyCare bill does not turn
up the word
"guns," and that the word "database" is seen only a
few times.

Hmm, if your Senator's office gives you that as a response, then tell
them not to be so lazy and naive.

One needs to do more than type in a word search in order to analyze
legislation. The database was set up under section 3001(c)(3)(i) of the
stimulus bill.  But the Kennedy bill allows for sweeping new
regulations, which make it potentially impossible for any doctor to
refuse to enter your records under the current section 13112 exemption.

Many things you tell your doctor in the privacy of his office could
affect your right to own a firearm. And just because anti-gun zealot Ted
Kennedy doesn't notify us up front of his anti-gun intentions doesn't
mean they don't exist.

Frankly, we got this same garbage in connection with the Veterans
Disarmament Act (officially known as the NICS Improvement Act), where
the anti-gunners took away the guns of 150,000 veterans through language
which was not explicit.  Before the bill was signed into law last year,
some detractors even claimed that because the NICS bill did not mention
the word "veterans," we must have been wrong to suggest that
the bill
would disarm vets!

Well, guess what?  The disarmament which was already occurring before
President Bush signed the legislation into law last year is now
occurring with a vengeance under the Obama administration.  (In fact,
GOA members should be looking for an upcoming mailing which will give
you postcards to send in support of an important bill -- introduced by
Sen. Burr of North Carolina -- which will protect veterans from the
fangs of the Veterans Disarmament Act.)

The point is, no Senate staffer should ever give you an opinion on a
bill unless he has read the entire code that the bill will be amending.
Nor should they ignore the potential for an Obama administration to
abuse any particular piece of legislation.

Remember how the RICO Act, originally enacted to help combat the Mafia,
was later used to crack down on legitimate banks and peaceful pro-life
protesters?  The original RICO Act never used the word
"abortion," but
that didn't stop overzealous prosecutors from going after the
non-violent protestors.

And who would have thought, when the original Brady law was passed in
1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding traffic
tickets... or couples with marriage problems... or military vets with
nightmares from buying guns?  After all, the Brady law never mentioned
those people groups, and yet the law has been used over the past 15-plus
years to deny gun rights to those very people.

Reading legislation is not a job for the timid or the lazy.  If staffers
in your Senate offices aren't willing to read current bills IN THE LIGHT
OF EXISTING LAWS -- and to do the research necessary to compile this
information -- then politely encourage them to get another line of work.

****************************

The Infamous "Rosie" T-shirt

A photo of a man wearing a particular GOA T-shirt has been circulating
around the internet in recent months, resulting in record sales.

Check out this unique shirt, featuring a GOA logo and the message:

If guns kill people, then...

  -- pencils miss spel words.
  -- cars make people drive drunk.
  -- spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Only $15.50 at http://gunowners.org/merchandise.htm (plus shipping and
handling).

****************************

Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Second Amendment: GAO Blames U.S. for Mexican Gun Violence

June 20, 2009

Well, it seems that even after being totally debunked the administration just keeps on ramming falsehoods at we the people…

“A new study by the Government Accountability Office says most firearms recovered in drug violence in Mexico come from the U.S., a finding that will likely fuel the politically charged debate over the U.S. government’s efforts to stem gun trafficking across the border,” reports The Wall Street Journal. As we have pointed out before, however, the data is flawed right from the beginning. According to the Journal, in 2008, Mexican law enforcement seized 30,000 weapons, but only 7,200 were submitted to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for tracing. Rather than look at the complete facts, of course, anti-gun demagogues pounced on the report. “The availability of firearms illegally flowing from the United States into Mexico has armed and emboldened a dangerous criminal element in Mexico, and it has made the job of drug cartels easier,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY). “It is simply unacceptable that the United States not only consumes the majority of the drugs flowing from Mexico, but also arms the very cartels that contribute to the daily violence that is devastating Mexico.”

Blaming law-abiding U.S. citizens for drug violence in Mexico makes little sense, other than as a justification for more gun control. In anticipation of a renewed effort by the Obama administration to reinstate the so-called “assault weapons” ban, 23 state attorneys general sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, saying, “We share the Obama Administration’s commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems.”

SOURCE followed up by…

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report this week entitled, “Firearms Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico Face Planning and Coordination Challenges.”

Among other things, the report asserts that Mexican officials consider illicit firearms the number one crime problem affecting their country’s security; that about 87 percent of firearms seized in Mexico and traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) in the last five years originated in the United States; and that these firearms are increasingly more powerful and lethal, including “high-caliber and high-powered” AK-47 and AR-15 type semi-automatic rifles. The report further contends that the country’s law enforcement agencies are insufficiently organized, and that Mexico has a history of corruption at the federal, state and local levels.

With regard to the “87 percent” statistic, the report’s figures make clear that BATFE only traces a fraction of the guns seized. Those firearms are not selected randomly, but are likely selected because they are the guns most likely to have come from the U.S.  Trace data reveals nothing about the large number of guns that are not traced.

The report also states “According to U.S. and Mexican government officials, these firearms have been increasingly more powerful and lethal in recent years. For example, many of these firearms are high-caliber and high-powered, such as AK and AR-15 type semiautomatic rifles.” The report, however, states that about 25 percent of firearms traced were of that type, which works out to only eight percent of all firearms seized. Also, the report does not indicate what percentage of murders is committed with various types of firearms, but it does note, “The majority of the casualties have been individuals involved in the drug trade in some way.”

The report further states that, “The U.S. government faces several significant challenges in combating illicit sales of firearms in the United States and stemming their flow into Mexico.” These include “restrictions on collecting and reporting information on firearms purchases, a lack of required background checks for private firearms sales, and limitations on reporting requirements for multiple sales” and even the fact that the U.S. government is prohibited by law from maintaining a national registry of firearms.

But as we know, the gun control measures indicated would not be effective against purchasers who can pass instant background checks. As the report noted, “Firearms [purchases] at gun shops and pawn shops for trafficking to Mexico are usually made by ‘straw purchasers,’ according to law enforcement officials. These straw purchasers are individuals with clean records who can be expected to pass the required background check and who are paid by drug cartel representatives or middlemen to purchase certain guns from gun shops.”

Finally, the report noted that, “Another significant challenge facing U.S. efforts to assist Mexico is corruption among some Mexican government entities. Government officials acknowledge fully implementing these reforms will take considerable time, and may take years to affect comprehensive change.” And, “According to Mexican government officials, corruption pervades all levels of Mexican law enforcement — federal, state, and local. For example, some high ranking members of federal law enforcement have been implicated in corruption investigations, and some high publicity kidnapping and murder cases have involved corrupt federal law enforcement officials.”

Obviously, Mexico has a huge problem with rampant corruption that clearly cannot be blamed on the U.S. At the same time, Mexico has extremely prohibitive gun laws, yet has far worse crime than the U.S.

More evidence of what is truly happening in Mexico was brought out in a series of hearings held earlier this year. During those hearings, three representatives of U.S. law enforcement, one each from BATFE, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), made it clear that the increase in violence in Mexico is being misinterpreted by the media and politicians. They testified that the increase in violence is a direct result of the actions taken by Mexican President Felipe Calderon to take on the cartels.  The cartels, they testified, are being pressured more than ever before and are fighting back in desperation, resulting in casualties. (If you wish to view the hearings, please use the following links: House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere: “Guns, Drugs and Violence: The Merida Initiative and the Challenge in Mexico” , and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs: “Law Enforcement Responses to Mexican Drug Cartels”)

For American gun owners, the battle will be to make sure that politicians who see an opportunity to advance their gun ban agenda do not use Mexico as an excuse to sacrifice our Second Amendment rights.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

We the people are coming

June 19, 2009

Hat tip to Anthony for pointing this piece out. I think that it sums up pretty nicely what a lot of Americans are feeling right now, and those Americans are from across the political spectrum.

I’m a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me.

Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you’re willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I’m not a racist. This isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don’t you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don’t trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we’ll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let’s have it. Let’s say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let’s just slow down and get some input from some non-politicians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law.

I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I’m busy. I’m busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course.

What happened?

You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance.

Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us.

We want our voice back.

You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington.

Our president often knows all the right buzzword[s and the latest] is ‘unsustainable’. Well, no kidding! How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don’t want your overpriced words.

Stop treating us like we’re morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you—not for long—because we are coming.

We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we’re so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work, pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you.

You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust.

We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish.

We didn’t ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don’t care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now.

We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back.

We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired.

Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you.

If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are.

If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one.

We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming.

We the people are coming.

SOURCE

Tags:,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 8 Comments »

Ted Kennedy Bill Could Send Your Gun Info Into A Massive Federal Database

June 18, 2009

More “Laird it over” from the Kennedy clan…

Ted Kennedy Bill Could Send Your Gun Info Into A Massive Federal
Database
-- And you could be forced to spend $13,000 of your own money toward
this effort!

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

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care
system he wants to foist on the whole country -- and it isn't pretty.

It won't be pretty for your pocket book... OR FOR YOUR GUN RIGHTS!

But first, let us explain what TeddyCare is all about.

At the center of the plan is what's called a "universal 
mandate." What
this means is that you -- and virtually everyone in the country -- will
have to buy as much health insurance as the government demands, and that
insurance plan will actually have to be approved by the government.

If you work for a small business, the business will buy the insurance on
your behalf. But you may be saddled with an enormous part of the cost.
And, if the employer's contribution is too large, you will be fired.

If you fail to buy TeddyCare, as the government orders you to do, the
IRS will fine you, garnish your wages, put a lien on your house, and,
ultimately, put you in prison.

How much will you have to spend on your TeddyCare insurance? Teddy's not
saying.

The portion of your paycheck that will have to be forked over to Teddy's
latest social experiment will be revealed ONLY AFTER THE MASSIVE HEALTH
CARE BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW.

This should set off alarm bells in your brain, because, for instance,
the average family policy is currently $12,700.  "So," 
proclaims Teddy,
"everyone's going to get a subsidy to pay for this."  There's 
going to
be a "chicken in every pot," and no one's going to have to 
pay for it.

Yeah, right. If you're a welfare mother, the government will pay for
your TeddyCare, and it would pay for it -- the first time -- by taxing
employer-provided health benefits of working Americans. But if you a
"working Joe" your Kennedy-subsidy will be a microscopic 
fraction of the
cost of your mandated TeddyCare insurance policy.

Okay, all of this sounds ominous... but why is this a gun issue?

The answer is that TeddyCare will allow radical left Health and Human
Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print
in every TeddyCare policy -- which you will be required to buy under
penalty of imprisonment.

Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other
factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of
computerizing all of your most confidential medical records and putting
them into a federal database.

So remember when your son was asked by his pediatrician about your gun
collection? That would be in the federal database.

Or remember when your wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly
smoked marijuana ten years ago -- thereby potentially barring both her
and you from ever owning a gun again? That would be in the database.

Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he's had
emotional stress since coming back to the States, that would be in the
database.

Or remember when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, thereby making
him a "mental defective" who would have to relinquish his 
life-long gun
collection? That's in there too.

And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of
that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE'S
private data in a database with a stroke of a pen.

When we say "everyone," we don't mean quite everyone.

Teddy has conveniently excluded Washington bureaucrats from his
TeddyCare mandate.

Also, Teddy and his friends in the media don't want you to hear about
the details until after the bill is passed. That's why they're trying to
slam it through within the next month and a half before anyone's had a
chance to read or debate it.

In fact, the TeddyCare proposal is currently circulating around Capitol
Hill without even a bill number.

ACTION:  Urge your two U.S. Senators to oppose Sen. Ted Kennedy's
mandate that will result in the registration of all your gun
information.

Please forward this email to your friends and family and urge them to
contact their Senators as well.

You can go to 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:

At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care
system he wants to foist on the whole country -- and it isn't pretty.

At the center of the TeddyCare plan is what's called a "universal
mandate." What this means is that I -- and virtually everyone in the
country -- will have to buy as much health insurance as the government
demands, and that insurance plan will actually have to be approved by
the government.

But this is not only an issue of individual freedom; it is a gun issue.

This is because Teddycare will allow radical left Health and Human
Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print
in every Teddycare policy -- which Americans will be required to buy
under penalty of imprisonment.

Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other
factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of
computerizing all of our most confidential medical records and putting
them into a federal database.

So if a kid is asked by his pediatrician about his dad's gun collection,
that would be in the federal database.

Or if a wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked
marijuana ten years ago -- thereby potentially barring both her and her
husband from ever owning a gun again, that would be in the database.

Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he's had
emotional stress since coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, that would
be in the database.

Or when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, thereby making him a
"mental defective" who would have to relinquish his life-long gun
collection, that would be in there too.

And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of
that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE'S
private data in a database with a stroke of a pen.

You cannot imagine how angry I, my family, and my neighbors are about
this most recent fraud scheme to cheat me out of perhaps over $10,000
for TeddyCare -- and to violate my privacy in the process.

I insist that you oppose TeddyCare -- immediately and loudly. Please do
not try to shower me with propaganda about how a mandate on how I spend
my own money is somehow good for me.

Sincerely,

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans in the dark

June 14, 2009

McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House

Sunday, 14 June 2009 00:00

— Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans in the dark

Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.

At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally reserved for “non-controversial” bills).

Many Representatives didn’t see that email until it was too late. Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of America.

Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making, unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world country with no running water has nothing on today’s U.S. Congress.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House. The headline read: “Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check Bill.”

Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to this “deal,” and how many of our rights were being used as bargaining chips?

The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.

After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns; and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

Even many Democrats wouldn’t go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA leadership to the table.

The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership to explain to its members what they would gain by working with McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and recorded votes, it would have been defeated.

Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an Associated Press article accurately stated that, “The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade.”

The bill’s supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check is certainly an expansion of gun control.

This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time. Problem is, the train’s on the wrong track. We don’t need greater efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being unconstitutional.

Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before proving one’s innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting to own guns).

Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed firearms.

We don’t know where the next shooting will occur; that’s something the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun control.

Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest of the Who’s Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.

This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in the years to come.

But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.

The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it. To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight every step of the way.

Although we’ve suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for the hard work you’ve done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not for the developments described above.

Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two senators.

Stay tuned. There is more to come.

Link for citation broken

Here is a more general link

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 10 Comments »

They just don’t get it, as usual…

June 14, 2009

“Some say Holocaust Memorial shooting signals a broader war.”

That’s the headline, and a more disingenuous article I may never have read before. It’s all about racism… It’s all about feeling displaced as power brokers, and it’s all about hating Israel and the Jewish people, further it’s all about taking guns away from people. That’s a summery of what the article says.

Of course logic tells us that simply cannot be true. There may be a combination of those factors that tend to set off a few unstable individuals. However, just like the DHS study that is noted in the story, and was reported on here, it lumps all sorts of people into the same profile.

Let’s go after the main points:

Racism; The article says that many whites are upset with things like affirmative action. Well, that’s racism, and or sexism period. Figure it out…

Illegal Immigration: This ties in with racism, and the so called fear of rising minority populations according to the article. Sorry folks, but it’s about obeying the rule of law and has nothing to do with race whatsoever.

Minority  Crime: Again, this ties in with the above issues. People, especially Blacks and Latinos, and a growing situation with Asians, suffer at the hands of criminals from minority groups at an alarming rate. So this is a “white” issue! Again, it’s not about race, it’s about crime and the rule of law, and that doesn’t matter one iota what color you skin is, or where your ancestors came from.

White Supremacy Groups, a.k.a  Nazi’s: If these groups are in fact growing it would be news to most conservative and libertarian types. As a group, we simply have no known dealings with people like that. The article lumps a lot of people of differing backgrounds with different morals and values together, and that in itself, is immoral. I suppose that Pam at Atlas Shrugged will be surprised that she hates Israel…

Multiculturalism: This failed ethical theory has been being shoved down peoples throats for quite some time now. It’s fine and dandy to be proud of ones heritage. Having said that, it’s not fine to shove that down other peoples throats. There is no room in America for hyphens, you are an American period. You may see yourself as I do as an American of Irish decent, and that’s fine. But to call yourself an “Irish American” disavows all that is America. For those that were not so lucky to be from Irish stock? Well, just insert the name of your own heritage in place of Irish. Further, Multiculturalism requires that none judge another person or peoples  background or morals. That folk’s is just plain wrong. I need not give any support to groups that still practice slavery, such as Islam for example. Nor, again using Islam as an example, need I support killing other people because they refuse to submit to my religion or political persuasion. Further, this failed theory finds that reparations for the actions of people that died centuries ago are appropriate. Nope, try applying a real ethical methodology to that, and it comes up pretty short. Let’s address it that way here.  Can this be understood by the common man? Answer; no, the common person cannot understand or agree with being held responsible for something that he had no part in doing. Therefore, this could never become universal law, and so fails the test of ethical reasoning.

Gun Control (Really weapon control.): The article treats this as an also ran, that people are worried about because of the current administrations position. Those people are, once again, concerned about law, as in the Constitution and more importantly, the Bill of Rights. The authors seem to be fearful that all gun owners are lunatics and are ready to overthrow the government. Which brings us too…

If the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are of such inconsequential value, then why even continue to have a United States of America? Answer, because all the people that the article points to as threats, other than the noted racist’s and insane types, are in fact Americans that love the United States of America, with all it’s warts, and believe that this kind of nation offers the best hope for freedom and liberty for all people now, and forever.

God Bless America, and those that love her!

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

The Second Amendment and the States…

June 12, 2009

I was roundly blasted on several websites last year when the D.C. vs. Heller decision was rendered by the gutless cowards that make up the Supreme Court. All too many neophytes called it the greatest thing since smokeless powder for American gun owners. Guess what folks? The devil, as I always say, is in the details.

Thankfully, nearly all state Constitutions use wording that makes the U.S. Constitution look wimpy by comparison with regards to the populace owning and possessing weapons. The ability to defend oneself and others is an unalienable right, not an inalienable privilege handed to the serfs.

Hence now the Heller decision is being used to actually attempt to deny liberty and freedom to the masses by the forces that seek domination over them in complete denial of natural law. Read on… Oh, and don’t forget to read between the lines this time!

Last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller definitively settled the fact that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right—as opposed to a collective one—to keep and bear arms. Yet that ruling applied only to the federal government (which oversees Washington, D.C.). Does the Second Amendment apply against state and local governments as well?

Although Heller never answered that question, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion did provide a very potent hint. In footnote 23, Scalia observed that while the Court’s earlier ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) stated that the Second Amendment did not apply against the states, “Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.”

To appreciate Scalia’s meaning, consider that the Supreme Court has been protecting First Amendment rights from state and local abuse since 1925’s Gitlow v. New York. The Court has done so under the so-called incorporation doctrine, whereby most of the Bill of Rights and certain other fundamental rights have been incorporated against the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which reads, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Cruikshank is therefore a dead letter when it comes to free speech. So why should it still matter for gun rights? As the footnote basically points out, Cruikshank was decided before incorporation had even been invented. So it’s the modern incorporation doctrine that matters now, not the long-dead reasoning behind Cruikshank.

This controversy lies at the center of last week’s unfortunate decision in National Rifle Association v. Chicago (formerly McDonald v. Chicago), where the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment offers zero protection against the draconian gun control laws currently in place in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

It’s a mistaken and also strangely misguided decision, as plaintiff’s attorney Alan Gura (who previously argued and won Heller) demonstrates in the appeal he quickly filed with the Supreme Court. As Gura notes, not only did the 7th Circuit decline “to perform the required incorporation analysis,” the court “erred in failing to heed Heller‘s cautionary statement that the pre-incorporation relics [including Cruikshank] lack ‘the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.'”

Moreover, the 7th Circuit even suggested that federalism would best be served by letting the states disregard the Second Amendment entirely. “Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon,” Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the three-judge panel.

Yet as Gura rightfully responds in his petition, “To claim that of all rights, the Second Amendment must yield to local majoritarian impulses is especially wrong considering that the rampant violation of the right to keep and bear arms was understood to be among the chief evils vitiated by adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Indeed, the 14th Amendment was specifically written and ratified by the Radical Republicans after the Civil War to protect the recently freed slaves and their white allies from the depredations of the former Confederate states, including the infamous Black Codes, which curtailed property rights, liberty of contract, free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment deserves the exact same respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights, nearly all of which have now been incorporated, something Gura is careful to explain. Which is precisely what the 7th Circuit should have said. Moreover, Gura persuasively argues that now is the right time for the Supreme Court to correct one of its most glaring historical errors by overturning the controversial Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), which essentially gutted the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, which reads, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” As numerous legal historians have now documented, the text, original meaning, and history of that clause all point in one direction: It was designed to nationalize the Bill of Rights and other substantive rights.

The 7th Circuit essentially breezed past this argument, though it’s perhaps worth noting that Judge Easterbrook did so while repeatedly referring to the “Privileges and Immunities Clause,” which is actually located in Article IV of the Constitution, when he quite clearly meant to write (and refer to) the 14th Amendment’s “Privileges or Immunities Clause.” It’s a small error, to be sure, though it’s still one that the federal circuit ought not to make.

So what does all this mean for the future of the Second Amendment and gun rights? Last January, the 2nd Circuit, including Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, reached the same erroneous conclusion about incorporation as the Seventh did last week. Yet in April, the 9th Circuit got it right, holding in Nordyke v. King that, “the right to keep and bear arms is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’… [and] is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty.” This split among the circuits means the Supreme Court will almost certainly take up the issue.

Given that Gura’s provocative and sharply reasoned appeal is now in the Court’s hands, and given that Chicago’s contested handgun ban so closely resembles the D.C. ban nullified last year in Heller, this case offers the perfect opportunity for the Court to fully restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place in our constitutional system.

Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason.

Bonus video: Reason.tv talked with Alan Gura last June about “The High Stakes of the DC Gun Ban Case” just before the Supreme Court released its decision in the Heller case. Click below to watch and go here for downloadable versions and related materials.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

AWB 2009? Some AG’s get it correct!

June 12, 2009

All to often in recent years we have seen various high end types in Law, as in attorney’s, seek to disavow their sworn oaths to the Constitution. Be that in wrongful prosecutions, or supporting ex post facto law simply based upon political correctness, or expediency.

So, I ask, is what follows the real deal? Or simply political posturing?

MCDANIEL SENDS LETTER TO U.S ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO REINSTATEMENT OF ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

Thursday, Jun 11, 2009

LITTLE ROCK- Today, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, along with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and 21 other State Attorneys General, sent a letter to United States Attorney General Eric Holder expressing their opposition to the reinstatement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’s semi-automatic firearms prohibition, which is commonly referred to as the “Assault Weapons Ban.”

In the letter, Generals Abbott and McDaniel note President Obama’s appreciation for the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters. They go on to say, “We share that appreciation for hunters and are committed to defending our Second Amendment rights–which is why we believe that additional gun control laws are unnecessary. Instead, authorities need to enforce laws that are already in place.

“I certainly share the President’s desire to reduce violent crime in our country, and across our borders,” McDaniel said. “However, based on the facts available, there is no reason to believe this law will result in any meaningful reduction in such crime and, therefore, does not justify further infringement on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

The text of the letter follows:

The Honorable Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Attorney General Holder:

We the undersigned Attorneys General respectfully write to express our opposition to the
reinstatement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’s semiautomatic
firearms prohibition, which is commonly referred to as the assault weapons
ban.

As the states’ top law enforcement officials, we share the Obama Administration’s
commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We
also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not
believe that restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to certain semi-automatic firearms
will resolve any of these problems. So, we were pleased by the President’s recent
comments indicating his desire to enforce current laws – rather than reinstate the ban on
so-called assault weapons.

As you know, the 1994 ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ did not apply to machine guns
or other fully automatic firearms. Machine gun ownership was first regulated when the
National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. And more than twenty years ago, Congress
took additional steps to ban fully automatic weapons. Because fully automatic machine
guns have already been banned, we do not believe that further restricting law-abiding
Americans’ access to certain semi-automatic firearms serves any real law enforcement
purpose.

Recent public statements by congressional leaders reflect that same view. On February
26, 2009, The Hill newspaper quoted the Senate Majority Leader’s spokesman saying:
“Sen. Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban.” When House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi was recently asked whether she supports reinstating the 1994 ban, the Speaker
reportedly responded “No…I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now.” We
agree with the Speaker and the Majority Leader.

The same sentiment has also been expressed to you by sixty-five (65) Congressional
Democrats in a letter dated March 17, 2009. In that letter, they astutely noted, “It is hard
to believe the ban would be…effective in controlling crime by well-funded international
drug traffickers, who regularly use grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, and other
weapons that are not available on the civilian market in the United States.”

Under Title 18, Section 924 of the U.S. Code,
knowingly transferring a firearm to an individual who will use that firearm to commit a
violent or drug-related crime is already a federal offense. Similarly, it is also a felony to
possess a firearm for the purpose of furthering drug trafficking. At a recent
Congressional hearing, Kumar Kibble, the Deputy Director of the Immigration and
Custom Enforcement’s Office of Investigations, testified that the Patriot Act included
changes to Title 18, Section 554 of the U.S. Code, which improved federal authorities’
ability to investigate and prosecute illegal smuggling.

As Attorneys General, we are committed to defending our constituents’ constitutional
rights – including their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. This duty
is particularly important in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent Heller
decision, which held that the Second Amendment “elevated above all other interests the
right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
The high court’s landmark decision affirmed that individual Americans have a
constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. We, the undersigned Attorneys
General, are staunch defenders of that right and believe that it should not be encroached
upon without sound justification – and a clear law enforcement purpose.

We are pleased that the Administration appears to conform with the Congressional
leadership’s position on this very important issue. Importantly, the White House website
no longer calls for the reinstatement of the 1994 ban. In fact, it expressly acknowledges
“the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters.” We share that appreciation for
hunters and are committed to defending our Second Amendment rights–which is why
we believe that additional gun control laws are unnecessary. Instead, authorities need to
enforce laws that are already in place.

As Attorneys General, we look forward to working with you and President Obama on
common-sense law enforcement solutions to transnational crime. We stand ready to
cooperate and collaborate on crime prevention and law enforcement initiatives that will
protect our constituents, crack down on transnational crime, and help reduce narcotics
consumption in the United States. But, for the reasons explained in this letter, we do not
believe that reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban will solve the problems currently
facing the United States or Mexico.

Sincerely,

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »