A New, Broader “Assault Weapons” Ban Nationwide

April 7, 2008
Setting The Stage Locally For A New, Broader “Assault Weapons” Ban Nationwide
 
Friday, April 04, 2008
 
 If you don’t live in a state that has an “assault weapon” ban, that issue might be off your radar screen these days. After all, the federal ban–on standard-capacity magazines and semi-automatics with a certain combination of cosmetic features–has been defunct for nearly four years. 

But anti-gun politicians and news media at the state level are ginning up for a 2009 campaign to enact a ban like that proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), because they know that both of the front-runners for the Democrat Party presidential nomination would sign such a ban into law in a New York minute. 

Knowing that the political landscape could be decisively different in 2009, anti-gun politicians and news media are currently trying to resurrect the “assault weapon” issue at the state level, to place it back on the political front burner.

First, newspapers began clamoring for a ban in Florida. Now, the Associated Press (AP) is trying to bolster support for a ban introduced in Louisiana, alleging an increase in crimes with AK-47-type rifles, based entirely upon BATFE firearm tracing data–even though the Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said traces cannot be used to determine how often any type of gun is used in crime. For some reason, AP also devoted attention to the fact that fully-automatic AKs are used by combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though that is irrelevant to semi-automatic AKs branded with the phony “assault weapon” name.  AP also claimed that AKs fire high-velocity ammunition, even though 7.62×39 is almost the lowest velocity .30 caliber rifle round in existence, similar to, but less powerful than, the modestly powered .30-30 Winchester, the most popular deer rifle in U.S. history. 

Needless to say, even though the “assault weapon” issue is more than 20 years old, reporters still are not getting it right, either because they are biased or because they are too lazy to research the subject. NRA members can help set the record straight by sending letters to the editors of their local newspapers.  For information on writing letters to your local newspaper, please click here.

 

source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3776

Obama, back in the saddle again

April 7, 2008
On The Campaign Trail, Obama Climbs Back On His Anti-Gun Horse
 
Friday, April 04, 2008
 
With the Democratic Presidential nomination process turning into what would have been an unthinkably close race only a few months ago, we continue to see the political contenders pulling out all of the rhetorical stops to distinguish themselves as the “candidate of choice” for their constituency.  We also continue to see the candidates test the limits of credibility in the process. 

Last month, we reported on the hypocrisy of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.  We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard.  Apparently, Obama is in the habit of saying and doing whatever he feels is politically expedient at the time, and for his particular audience.  Well, he’s at it again, and changing horses in the middle of the campaign stream. 

While on the campaign trail earlier this year, Obama tried to reassure pro-gun voters by telling them, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”  But an April 3 article in Townhall.com reports that Obama in now embracing his well-documented anti-gun leanings.  “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” he told the Pittsburgh Tribune.  “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could [get shot during] altercations.”  Obama went on to discuss, “…cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks…,” and, “…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]….” 

It obviously comes as no surprise that Obama is anti-gun.  In fact, as with Hillary, we are so well aware of Obama’s hostility toward the Second Amendment that in the 2004 elections, NRA’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) issued Obama a well-deserved “F” grade.  What’s surprising is that he thinks he can slowly change his message and we won’t notice.  Incidentally, in taking his latest position, Obama is opposing the law in 48 of our 50 states, which afford law-abiding citizens a means to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection.

In truth, both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun.  (Neither joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment.)  For either to now try to convince us otherwise is ridiculous.

source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3779

More on Obama

April 7, 2008

Barack Obama, who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation’s capital is constitutional. But Sen. Obama has not stated his position. Obama, disagreeing with the D. C. government and gun control advocates, declares the Second Amendment’s ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ applies to individuals, not just the ‘well-regulated militia’ cited in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local ‘common sense’ restrictions on firearms. Does the Draconian prohibition for Washington, D. C., fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.” —Robert Novak

SOURCE: Patriot Post

John McCain: Conservative or Gun-Grabber?

April 6, 2008

For quite some time I have been telling people that not only is John McCain a gun grabber, but one of the worst of the bunch. Here is a compilation of McCain actions that are clear threats to freedom, and libertyAlerts Mentioning John McCain

John McCain’s Liberal Record

John McCain Is A Liberal Gun Grabber
John McCain Funded By Soros Since 2001
John McCain’s Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts
The Geraldo Rivera Republican
Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP
America’s Foolish European Wannabes
Refutation Of “A Day At The Beach” Charge
Andy Card — I Have Seen McCain’s Anger
McCain’s Character — A Disaster Waiting To Happen
Sen. McCain: I Don’t Have A Temper
John McCain: Liberal In Disguise
Friendly Fire: McCain Has Some Explaining To Do
McCain’s Constitution
Softening The Skeptics
McCain’s War On Political Speech
Lobbying Reforms Unconstitutional
McCain: Major League Hypocrite
McCain’s Gun Control Ad

John McCain’s Voting Record On Gun-Related Issues

109th Congress: Lock Up Your Safety
108th Congress: McCain Puts Gun Shows In Peril
107th Congress: Incumbent Protection Muzzles Gun Owners
106th Congress: Anti-gun Amendments AboundMore Direct Links Here

April 2006

 

 

 

Limiting Speech Of 527 Organizations

 

 

 

March 2006

 

 

 

Shutting Down Websites Prior To Elections

 

 

 

March 2006

 

 

 

Will Congress Ditch John McCain’s Internet Regulations?

 

 

 

February 2006

 

 

 

McCain Still Trying To Gag Gun Owner Criticism Of His Anti-gun Record

 

 

 

February 2006

 

 

 

McCain Moves To Punish Grassroots Groups For Congress’ Controversy

 

 

 

May 2002

 

 

 

McCain Looks To Cripple Gun Shows

 

 

 

Mar 2002

 

 

 

Incumbent Protection Could Come Up At Any Time

 

 

 

May 2001

 

 

 

Senators McCain & Lieberman Introduce Anti-gun Monstrosity

 

 

 

May 2001

 

 

 

Senate Could Soon Ban Private Sales

 

 

 

April 2001

 

 

 

Senate Passes Incumbent Protection

 

 

 

March 2001

 

 

 

Senate OK’s Free Speech Restrictions

 

 

 

March 2001

 

 

 

McCain-Feingold Up In The Senate This Week

 

 

 

March 2001

 

 

 

Incumbent Protection Threatens GOA’s Existence

 

 

 

February 2001

 

 

 

McCain Wants More Gun Control

 

 

 

February 2000

 

 

 

Presidential Campaign Advisory

 

 

 

 

Why do we, as Americans always end up with having to choose the lessor of evils?

edited to repair broken links.

 

Film Legend Charlton Heston Dead at 84

April 6, 2008

“Charlton Heston is my President.” That is what the old bumper sticker says. Faded, and worn though it is, I will leave it on my truck. It was a great slap in the face of then POTUS Bill Clinton, and remains a statement that is valid, sadly, even today.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Charlton Heston, who won the 1959 best actor Oscar as the chariot-racing “Ben-Hur” and portrayed Moses, Michelangelo, El Cid and other heroic figures in movie epics of the ’50s and ’60s, has died. He was 84.

The actor died Saturday night at his home in Beverly Hills with his wife Lydia at his side, family spokesman Bill Powers said.

Powers declined to comment on the cause of death or provide further details.

“Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life. He was known for his chiseled jaw, broad shoulders and resonating voice, and, of course, for the roles he played,” Heston’s family said in a statement. “No one could ask for a fuller life than his. No man could have given more to his family, to his profession, and to his country.”

Heston revealed in 2002 that he had symptoms consistent with Alzheimer’s disease, saying, “I must reconcile courage and surrender in equal measure.”

With his large, muscular build, well-boned face and sonorous voice, Heston proved the ideal star during the period when Hollywood was filling movie screens with panoramas depicting the religious and historical past. “I have a face that belongs in another century,” he often remarked.

Publicist Michael Levine, who represented Heston for about 20 years, said the actor’s passing represented the end of an iconic era for cinema.

~snip~  Source: http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=308288&GT1=7701

Post Office Ban On Mailing Replica Or Inert Munitions

April 4, 2008

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

Friday, April 4, 2008

The Post Office is wading into the gun control debate.

That’s right, the U.S. Postal Service is trying to keep people from shipping
replica or inert munitions through the mail.

They have no authority in the law, since Congress has kept for itself the
power to decide what can and cannot be shipped. But the Post Office is
trying to say that replica or inert munitions are hazardous!

Gun Owners of America’s attorneys just found out about this outrageous
proposal which was issued by the Post Office. Although the deadline for
postmarking is Monday, April 7, our attorneys say that e-mails and letters
should be sent anyway.

If you are a re-enactor or collector of replica or inert munitions, you are
in the Post Office crosshairs. If you are not directly involved in this,
you should still be outraged that a bunch of bureaucrats are trying to
further restrict Second Amendment activity.

By the way, there is one interesting dimension to all of this: Canada wants
the US to help shut off shipment of these items into Canada. So it looks
like our bureaucrats are eager to appease other governments by changing our
laws to make them as bad as our neighbors’.

You can read the Postal Service proposed regulations here:
http://uxoinfo.com/blogcfc/client/enclosures/Proposed-Ban_ShippingInert.pdf

You can read GOA’s comments to the Postal Service here:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0803.pdf

ACTION: Please send your comments to the Post Office ASAP. The letter must
be postmarked by Monday, April 7, 2008. Here’s the contact information.

TITLE: 73 Fed. Reg. 12321: New Standards Prohibit the Mailing of Replica or
Inert Munitions

E-MAIL: michael.f.lee@usps.gov

SNAIL MAIL:
Manager, Mailing Standards
United States Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., Room 3436
Washington, DC 20260-3436

Dutch film on Islam, and the religion of peace

April 4, 2008

Yet another example of the reasonableness of Islam. again as reported in Patriot Post:

When Dutch politician-turned-filmmaker Geert Wilders finally unveiled his 15-minute anti-Islamic film “Fitna” (Arabic for “strife”) last week, it was condemned by the EU and UN as “offensively anti-Islamic” and sparked protests, most notably in predominately Muslim Indonesia. Shocking, we know.

In the film, Wilder denounces the Koran as “fascist” and as the root of violence against non-Muslims. However, free-speech advocates apparently expected more from the film and found it instead to be merely a poor concoction of stock footage of terrorist attacks along with excerpts of the Koran. Aside from calling for Wilders’ death for insulting Islam, the most extreme activity by protesters in Indonesia was a broken gate and lowered flag at the Dutch consulate (oh, and the government is working to block YouTube for the posting). Such reactions are a far cry from the violence that followed the Danish publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, leading one to believe that the film did not make its point clearly enough.

Still, the Dutch prime minister distanced himself from Wilder, saying, “The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence. In fact, the victims are often also Muslims.” So… the victims of Muslim extremism are Muslims? No word yet on whether Indonesian protesters are also calling for the Prime Ministers’ death.

Ted Turner

April 4, 2008

A Professor Emeritus at U.C.S.D once told me that I should never confuse education with intelligence. Ted Turner extends that belief here, as noted by The Patriot Post in yet another excellent expose of stupidity.

Our old friend Ted Turner, founder of CNN, pops up in the news every now and again. This week, he opined on a wide swath of topics, most notably on his dark visions of a future unshackled from government controls of human action, ostensibly to combat “global climate change.” (Around our editorial shop we have another, older word for “global climate change” —“seasons.”) Ted proclaimed, “There’s too many people. That’s why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people they’d be using less stuff.” He warned that if we don’t combat global warming now, the results “will be catastrophic… We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 10, not 10, but in 30 or 40 years, and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.” It’s doubtful, however, that Ted’s liver will pass USDA standards.

Soon, Ted turned his attention to Iraq, saying, “[E]ven with our $500-billion military budget, we can’t win in Iraq. We’re being beaten by insurgents who don’t even have any tanks.” On the jihadis’ motives, Ted declared, “I think that they’re patriots and that they don’t like us because we’ve invaded their country and occupied it. I think if the Iraqis were in Washington, DC, we’d be doing the same thing; we’d be bombing them too. Nobody wants to be invaded.” Uh, Ted, most of the insurgents are not Iraqis. Sort of throws a kink in the idea of their being “patriots,” doesn’t it? Lesson here: Success in business is not necessarily a good indicator of overall intelligence.

Fencing the environment

April 4, 2008

This week the Department of Homeland Security announced it would avail itself of congressionally allowed waivers of environmental and land-management laws on the books to build more of the security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. The stated goal is to erect 670 miles of fencing by year’s end, although the rate DHS is moving forward on this project leave doubts about the administration’s seriousness. Of course, environmental activists were soon undermining U.S. security efforts with their recently adopted “lawfare” response. Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club asked the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the waivers, as an alleged violation of the separation of powers. So the greenies fully accept that Congress can make laws they like for environmental protection, but they view congressionally authorized waivers of those same laws as unconstitutional when executive branch officers act on them as matters of national security? The enviro-nuts are relying on their preferred tools—the ratchet and the monkey wrench—to ensure that humans are endangered while falsely proclaiming themselves as defenders of life on this planet.

Will the wacko’s never stop attempting to destroy the United States?

edit to cite: Source Patriot Post

Marine cleared in Haditha case

April 4, 2008

OhooRAH!

Though you wouldn’t know it from Leftmedia accounts or films like “Redacted” and “Battle for Haditha,” the case against the “Haditha Massacre” Marines has been falling apart for a couple of years now. In the most recent development, all charges were dropped against Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum without explanation (read: lack of evidence). He is the third Marine to be exonerated, leaving only one to face court martial. “Lance Corporal Tatum wants to make it clear to the Marine Corps—especially other Marines—and everyone else that there were no deals in this decision,” said attorney Jack Zimmermann, a former military judge and retired Marine. “I have never had a client who would have more preferred to have a trial rather than have the charges dismissed in a deal. He has believed all along he did nothing wrong and was prepared and anxious to stand trial.” Somehow we doubt that Hollywood or Rep. Jack Murtha (D-“in cold blood”) will be apologizing for their rush to judgment.

source: Patriot Post