George Bush is no Supporter

August 6, 2006

Click here for 19 full quotes by George W. Bush OR click here for 5 older headlines OR click here for George W. Bush on other issues.

  • Make America safer by prosecuting criminals with guns. (Oct 2004)
  • If gun laws are broken, hold people accountable. (Oct 2000)
  • First, enforce the law; then keep guns from wrong people. (Oct 2000)
  • Restrict lawsuits against gun makers. (Sep 2000)
  • Government should pay for voluntary trigger locks. (May 2000)
  • Project Sentry: juvenile gun laws & school accountability. (Apr 2000)
  • Avoid Columbine via gun control, values & character ed. (Apr 2000)
  • Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions. (Apr 2000)
  • Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)
  • More laws & enforcement on juveniles with guns. (Apr 2000)
  • Best gun control is more prosecution & certain jail. (Dec 1999)
  • Supports gun ownership for protection and hunting. (Dec 1999)
  • Raise legal age for guns to 21; ban certain ammo. (Aug 1999)
  • No child-safety locks on guns; concealed carrying ok. (Jun 1999)
  • Arrest for guns in school; track juvenile offenders. (Jun 1999)
  • No city lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jun 1999)
  • Gun restrictions OK within basic right to own guns. (May 1999)
  • Gun show checks OK; ban guns near schools & kids. (Apr 1999)
  • Assault weapon OK; waiting period not OK. (Apr 1999)

Looks more like a lawyer than a supporter of gun rights. Just enough to lure the voting block. Not to mention that he later stated that he would sign a re-authorization of the AWB if it came to his desk. If you read the above closely you will see more double talk than even a drunk in church spouts on a Sunday!

Why Women Support Repealing the Lautenberg Gun Ban

August 6, 2006

Top Ten Reasons
Why Women Support Repealing the Lautenberg Gun Ban

by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408

(Sent to Congress May 1, 1997)

NUMBER TEN: The Lautenberg ban can permanently disarm women who try to defend themselves against an abusive spouse.(1)

NUMBER NINE: Women can now lose their Second Amendment rights for slapping a husband during an argument.(2)

NUMBER EIGHT: Women are often charged with domestic violence — even if they are not at fault — when the police arrive at a domestic disturbance, and the resulting conviction or plea-bargain now revokes their gun rights forever.(3)

NUMBER SEVEN: Women are losing their constitutional rights over extremely minor offenses — including plea-bargaining to a $25 misdemeanor fine (even 20 years ago or more) for an offense they might not have committed (see number eight above).(4)

NUMBER SIX: Women can lose their gun rights for shoving their husband during an argument.(5)

NUMBER FIVE: Women can lose their right to keep and bear arms for simply spanking a child.(6)

NUMBER FOUR: Women can lose their ability to defend themselves as a result of bogus charges of domestic violence which are “routinely used as tactics in divorce proceedings.”(7)

NUMBER THREE: The Lautenberg gun ban completely violates the Second Amendment which ensures that the people’s right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

NUMBER TWO: Women’s groups (like Concerned Women for America, Independent Women’s Forum, and Safety for Women and Responsible Motherhood) have opposed the Lautenberg provision.

AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY WOMEN THINK THE LAUTENBERG BAN SHOULD BE REPEALED: Because liberal Senator Frank Lautenberg sponsored it.

What Can You Do:

Cosponsor H.R. 1009. This is the only bill that will fully repeal the Lautenberg gun ban, unlike other so-called repeal bills. Please let Gun Owners of America know that we can count on you to take a stand for the Bill of Rights. Thank you.

—————————————————————
1. “Women are being charged with assault when it’s self-defense or fictitious,” said Sue Osthoff, director of the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women. . . . “I think it’s being used as a very systematic weapon against women. . . . When the web is thrown out, women come back in, often inappropriately.” Leef Smith, “Domestic Violence Arrests Rise Among Women,” The Washington Post, 18 November 1996.
2. “I’ve had a lot of women who call and say their husband started the fight and then when the police get involved, their husbands accuse them of mutual combat,” Cathy Maxfield of Virginians Against Domestic Violence said. “I had one woman who called and said her husband hit her, and out of reflex, she him back.” Ibid.
3. “Jeanne MacLeod, director of the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, attributes a good part of the increased arrests [of women] to the tendency of police to arrest both parties when they have doubts. ‘I think there are many cases when women are being victimized by the mandatory arrest policies,’ MacLeod said. ‘You tell the police they have to arrest someone, and sometimes they can’t tell who did what to whom, and they’ll arrest both people to safeguard themselves.'” Ibid.
4. “Many people who plea-bargained 20 years ago on such a charge [of domestic violence] and paid a small court fine (instead of spending $5,000 in legal fees to defend themselves) will be surprised to discover that they have lost one of their constitutional rights.” James Bovard, “Disarming Those Who Need Guns Most,” The Wall Street Journal, 23 December 1996.
5. “‘Many of the arrests [from domestic violence] are based on such things as shoves’ — rather than knock-down punches or chairs broken over people’s heads.” Ibid.
6. “The new law could provide vigilante prosecutors the power to seize the guns of parents who are not following Dr. Spock’s child-rearing recommendations. . . . ‘There is a move across the country by child rights groups to outlaw corporal punishment. In a few instances, families have been found guilty of abusing their children as a result of spanking — not that their children were hurt or anything.'” Ibid.
7. “Bogus charges of domestic violence are routinely used as tactics in divorce proceedings. . . . ‘Many domestic violence charges are false — perhaps as many as one-third where child custody or divorce issues are involved,’ says Peter Proctor, a forensic expert in Houston.” Ibid.


Back to Lautenberg Table
Back to 105th Congress Archive
Up to Home
Copyright, Contact and Credits

THE LAUTENBERG LAW

August 6, 2006

http://www.gunowners.org
Feb. 1997

THE LAUTENBERG DOMESTIC CONFISCATION LAW

Analysis by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

WHAT DOES THE LAUTENBERG LAW DO?

The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision was signed into law on September 30, 1996, as section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of the omnibus appropriations bill. It adds to the list of “prohibited persons” persons convicted of a “… misdemeanor involving domestic violence.”

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A “PROHIBITED PERSON”?

If you become a prohibited person, you can never again own or acquire a firearm of any type. The only exception is if you are subsequently pardoned or otherwise have your criminal record expunged.

WHAT IS A MISDEMEANOR?

A misdemeanor is a crime carrying a potential penalty of as little as one day in jail, irrespective of whether the person serves actual jail time. In other words, the law imposes a lifetime gun ban on offenses which, in many cases, are very minor in nature.

WHAT TYPE OF MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION WOULD CAUSE ME TO BECOME A “PROHIBITED PERSON”?

The Lautenberg language defines “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to include a misdemeanor that involves “the use or attempted use of physical force” against a family member. Hence, any actual or attempted violence against a spouse or son or daughter would certainly, if prosecuted successfully as a misdemeanor, subject you to a lifetime gun ban. In many jurisdictions, spanking your kids could result in a conviction which would prohibit you from ever again owning a firearm.

WOULD THE MISDEMEANOR HAVE TO INVOLVE VIOLENCE OR ATTEMPTED VIOLENCE?

No. We have seen that a misdemeanor involving violence (however slight) or attempted violence against a spouse, son, or daughter would certainly be covered. But the definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” goes on to include “the threatened use of a deadly weapon.” Thus, a threat against a family member would also subject the offender to a lifetime gun ban, even if the threat were joking or the person making the threat did not have the wherewithal to carry it out.

DOES THE NEW LAW APPLY TO PAST CRIMES?

Yes. A misdemeanor committed fifty years ago would still subject an individual to a lifetime gun ban, even if he or she has lived a happily married life with the “victim” during the intervening period.

HOW LONG DOES A “PROHIBITED PERSON” HAVE TO TURN IN ALL HIS OR HER FIREARMS?

The law provides for no grace period. Technically, any newly created “prohibited person” is currently in danger of a felony conviction.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

It means that, if you are a “prohibited person” and you are convicted of possessing a firearm, you will be guilty of a felony which could subject you to a $250,000 fine and a ten year prison sentence.

WHAT ABOUT POLICEMEN AND SOLDIERS?

There is no exemption for law enforcement officials or members of the armed services. These persons, if they have been convicted of even minor misdemeanors against their spouses, will have to be disarmed and fired.

WHAT ABOUT BATTERED WOMEN WHO DEFENDED THEMSELVES?

There is no exemption for battered women who received minor misdemeanor convictions after they used force to defend themselves against their battering spouses. There are many battered women who fall into this category. They will now be unable to use firearms to protect themselves against their abusive and threatening husbands, even if they feel that their lives are endangered.

WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAW?

Because the law now imposes lifetime gun bans on persons who, in some cases, have engaged in no actual violence or attempted violence, it will only be a matter of time before anti-gun activists try to impose lifetime guns bans in non-domestic situations of minor misdemeanors involving violence (such as fist fights). Ultimately, an effort to impose a lifetime gun ban on all persons convicted of misdemeanors will be made.


Back to Lautenberg Table
Back to 105th Congress Archive
Up to Home
Copyright, Contact and Credits

From the Gunny

August 5, 2006

GUNNY’S COLUMN
07/17/06


THE FOOLHARDY FALLACY OF REQUISITE PROPORTIONAL RESPONSE

The elite liberal media, being yapping lap dogs for the American political left, have been screaming about the evil Jews using disproportionate force as Israel finally responds to the carnage Muslim terrorists have been heaping upon it of late. The proverbial last straw was the Iranian- and Syrian-controlled terrorist group Hezbollah kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in northern Israel. Hezbollah, in case you have forgotten, carried out the 1983 attacks on the United States Embassy and Marine compound in Beirut, the 1984 attack on the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, and the 1996 destruction of the Khobar Towers U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia (total Americans dead in these attacks: 325).

The usual sniveling lackeys of the anti-Israel Democratic Party and their liberal media henchmen can’t seem to grasp the entry-level tactical maxim of disproportionate response, which throughout recorded history has demonstrated innumerable times how disproportionate response can oftentimes end a war. It is the same principle used in barroom brawling: If someone punches you in the nose, you must assume he has no intention of stopping with that one punch, which means your response should be to repeatedly and viciously hit him over the head with the barkeep’s Louisville Slugger until sufficient evidence is presented that causes you to believe the fellow is no longer a threat. It all has to do with the concepts of survival and victory. And, as an added attraction, word will get around town that you are not to be trifled with.

Funny, but we haven’t really been inundated with liberal newspaper editorials lamenting Hamas and Hezbollah’s unending attacks on Israel with Qassam and Katyusha missiles and demanding the terrorists cease and desist, now have we? Why do you suppose that is? And why, as soon as Israel decides enough is enough, do you suppose liberal newspaper editorials from coast to coast attack the Jews for having the temerity to vigorously defend themselves?

Naturally, many liberals are screaming that a “disproportionate response” to an attack is illegal. This is an asinine claim with no basis in fact. And any professional military man will tell you that the military commander who orders only proportionate responses to attacks will soon be dead or relieved of command. If a commander comes up against a platoon in the defense dug into a fortified position on a hill, he doesn’t send one of his platoons against the enemy platoon. He sends a reinforced company with armor, artillery and close-air support. And he employs every weapon he can get his hands on short of a tactical nuke. That’s how you win, people.

No part of the Laws and Customs of War on Land requires warring parties to use proportional force in response to an attack. Are we pretty clear on that?

The leader of the liberals is Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Edvard Munch must have somehow looked into the future to find and use Dean as his paradigm for “The Scream.”

There is no more delusional an extremist liberal in American politics than Howard Dean and, yes, that’s saying something because he has a slew of competition. However, to give you his most recent example of just how unhinged a weirdo he is, while addressing an audience of braying liberals in San Diego this past Sunday at a lemmingesque gathering called DemocracyFest at San Diego State University, Dean claimed that, if Democrats were in charge, Israel would not have needed to invade Lebanon because this diuturnal conundrum would have been handily deciphered years ago by the sagacious liberals.

Said Doctor Demento: “If you think what’s going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn’t, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn’t get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

Yes, Howard, you Democrats sure did a dandy job on not only the Middle East, but North Korea, China, Congo, Somalia, the Pakistan-India fracas, the Philippines, the birth and global rise of al Qaeda, the intercontinental expansion of Hezbollah, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. I can’t determine what he is babbling about when he says Clinton brought the “Northern Irish and the IRA” together, given that the Irish Republican Army is from Northern Ireland. And on the same day Dean made his bizarre claim that Clinton had brought Israel and the Palestinians together, Israel again walloped the Palestinian Authority’s Foreign Ministry compound. The man lives on Planet Preposterous in the Screw-Loose Galaxy.

In the end, liberals are a spineless lot who have once again shown their true colors, every one of which is a sickly and sickening shade of yellow.

http://www.850koa.com/pages/shows_gunny.html

Once again Gunny Bob nails it. I have never understood the very concept of proportional response. In war you fight to win. No ifs ands, or buts. Our troops deserve all the support that we can drum up, and then some. The Israeli’s deserve the same. We are, after all is said and done, fighting the very same enemy.

Sometimes I wonder

August 5, 2006

I often wonder why people do the things that they do. Here are a few really dumb things that I have noticed lately.

  • Let’s blame a firearm for functioning as designed! Never mind the idiot that mis-used it.
  • Refuse to vote because it makes no difference. Then whine about the outcome!
  • Drink way too much and then complain about having a hangover.
  • Get mad about some woman being nude on a beach. Then talk about being religious and how mankind was created in the image of God.
  • Scream about high fuel prices. Then refuse to allow drilling for oil off our own coastlines.
  • Yell about the demise of the U.S. Constitution. Then back politicians that “go with the flow” of political correctness.
  • Let certain people from south of the border stay here even after committing felonies, but immediately deport someone from Ireland for a minor infraction. All the while saying that the immigration laws are racist.
  • Call a shotgun designed for upland game hunting an assault rifle.

Well, that should be enough to get things started. I refuse to even bother commenting on the people that get “glued” to toilet seats!

Israel bombs bridges as rockets land closer to Tel Aviv

August 5, 2006

Matthew Fisher, CanWest News Service

Published: Saturday, August 05, 2006

Article tools

Font:

HALAT, Lebanon — As Hezbollah continued to rain hundreds of rockets down on northern Israel, the wrath of the Israeli air force exploded spectacularly out of a clear blue sky Friday morning on a steep hill above this posh, mainly Christian seaside hamlet 50 kilometres north of Beirut.

A 150-metre long span of a key bridge on the main four-lane coastal highway that links the capital to northern Lebanon was ripped apart and thrown into the dry riverbed below by precision-guided weapons fired from Israeli warplanes.

“Oh my God, it’s all gone,” said nurse Ali Haider, as he peered down at a huge jumble of twisted steel and chunks of concrete and asphalt. “I had had a weird feeling that the Israelis would go after this bridge and now it has happened.”

Passengers in one car died when the bridge collapsed, as did a passerby who was going for an early morning jog.

The attack missed by only 50 metres a group of several dozen Shia children who had fled the fighting in the south with their parents and had been sheltering at a Christian school.

“If we had had any idea that they would attack here, too, we would never have come,” said Suleiman Yusef Suleiman, who had moved here one week ago from a village five kilometres from the Israeli border. “There is no safety anywhere in Lebanon today.”

Three other bridges on the highway, including an even longer span that soars dramatically above the Casino du Liban, were badly damaged as Israel sought to sever routes that it believes Hezbollah has been using to move weapons from Syria and the Bekaa Valley into southern Lebanon.

But the Red Cross and UN humanitarian agencies complained that this route was almost the last way they had to bring emergency supplies into Lebanon, where nearly 900,000 people have been displaced by the fighting in the south and the bombings in Beirut.

Hezbollah, which threatened to bomb Israel’s business centre, Tel Aviv, on Thursday, was not quiet Friday either. It fired 195 missiles into Israel according to police there, killing three members of Israel’s Arab Druze minority. One of the rockets launched Friday landed 75 kilometres inside Israel at Hadera, deeper in the country than ever before, but still 40 kilometres shy of Tel Aviv.

Three Israeli soldiers also died in fighting Friday inside Lebanon’s border with Israel, bringing the total of Israel war dead to 74. Lebanon’s official death tally is nearly 700, but officials believe that the bodies of at least 200 more people have not yet been recovered from collapsed buildings.

Israel not only attacked Lebanon’s principal northern traffic artery Friday, it carried out a series of air strikes across the country. Most of the raids were in the south, in support of Israeli ground troops which have been locked in lethal combat with Hezbollah for many days now.

Southern Beirut was shaken by several waves of bombing overnight and again Friday morning. Israeli warplanes returned to the skies over the capital late Friday.

The deadliest attack of the day was 150 kilometres north of Israel at a fruit farm in the hamlet of Qaa, which is in Lebanese territory in the no man’s land at the northern end of the Bekaa Valley between Lebanon and Syria. As many as 33 men, many of them Syrian Kurds whom Lebanese authorities described as labourers, died when Israel targeted a group of trucks that had just arrived from Syria.

Give them hell Israel! It looks like the whole world is angry with Israel for defending itself. Nothing new about that. I still wonder though why the MSM has failed to properly report about the constant rocket attacks on civilian populations in Israel that had been going on for months. The terrorist’s only understand one thing. Pure unadulterated force. The Lebanese need to learn that if they harbor terrorists there will be consequences. Allow them to hide among your women and children don’t be suprised in the least if some of your loved ones get killed.

Perhaps this should have been placed under “Stupid is as stupid does?”

Some people..! I am not alone in Libertarian thinking.

August 2, 2006

“Because just as good morals, if they are to be maintained, have need of the laws, so the laws, if they are to be observed, have need of good morals.” —Niccolo Machiavelli

“The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.” —John Quincy Adams

“No one ever heard of the truth being enforced by law. When the secular is called in to sustain an idea, whether new or old, it is always a bad idea, and not infrequently it is downright idiotic.” —H. L. Mencken

“If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.” —Sir Winston Churchill

I have to believe that when so many of the great thinkers from the past believe as I do that I cannot be in such bad company. It seems in this day and age that a new law is the answer to anything. A law to stop the President from performing his duties as required by the Constitution. A law to stop Americans from having their Rights as defined by the Constitution. A law to ensure that medications are as pure as the driven snow. A law that decides when your son or daughter is, or is not a person. A law that says that you, as an individual cannot make your own liquor but you can if your family is connected politically. A law that defies human development. Where the hell will it end?

Learning Politics

August 1, 2006

Subject: Learning Politics

Indian walks into a cafe with a shotgun in one hand pulling a male buffalo with
the other. He says
to the waiter, “Want coffee.” The waiter says, “Sure, Chief, coming right up.”
He gets the Indian
a tall mug of coffee. The Indian drinks the coffee down in one gulp, turns and
blasts the buffalo
with the shotgun, causing parts of the animal to splatter  everywhere, then just
walks out.

The next morning the Indian returns. He has his shotgun in one hand pulling
another male buffalo
with the other. He walks up to the counter and says to the waiter, “Want
coffee.”  The waiter
says, “Whoa, Tonto! We’re still cleaning up your mess from yesterday. What was
all that about,
anyway?”

The Indian smiles and proudly says, “Training for position in United States
Congress: Come in, drink
coffee, shoot the bull, leave mess for others to clean up, disappear for rest of
day.”

Aint that the truth!

I am a hunter

July 23, 2006

I am a hunter and fisherman. I will make no excuses for my behavior. Indeed, those that disparage such activities bear the task of presenting why they deny their very humanity need to explain their choice.

I hunt with archery tackle, firearms, and black powder arms. I fly fish primarily, but will do what I need to in order to catch fish. I use every part of what I kill that I am able to.

Dude! Don’t buy a Dell!

July 23, 2006