Posts Tagged ‘Bill of Rights’

Double Edged Swords and unintended things …

November 18, 2011

Seems that the Concealed Carry reciprocity Bil HR 822 passed by a wide margin. Looks good on the face of things. At least if you support the Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, I submit that this is merely a pig that has been dressed up and had a liberal amount of lipstick applied. It’s still nothing but a pig…

Why so? Because it assumes that the federal Government can assign a right that is preexisting, an inalienable right. Just because Illinois and D.C. are stuck on stupid does not in any way mean that others must follow their lead toward totalitarianism. It would have been much better if the House would have passed a law that said that no State, City, etc. shall deny any right that is defined as inalienable, including the Second Amendment right to be capable of properly and effectively defend oneself, neighbors, State, and Nation. In passing this law, they justify wrongdoing by a government authority, as it were. That said, here is Gun Owners of America’s take on things.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Passes House

Violence Policy Center’s “research?” Stuck on Stupid!

October 14, 2011

Violence Policy Center Continues to Misfire on Concealed Carry Holders

This year, Wisconsin became the 49th state to recognize the right of its citizens to carry firearms.1  Now, only one state remains in the Dark Ages — that being the state of Illinois.

But as can be imagined, the anti-gun media is predicting that letting citizens carry firearms will result in carnage in the streets, shootouts in bars, and angry parents settling scores on the ball field with their firearms.

And to supposedly prove their point, they cite a bogus report of the Violence Policy Center (VPC), entitled “Concealed Carry Killers.”  The faux report says that “since May 2007 at least 300 people — including 11 law enforcement officers — have been killed by private citizens legally allowed to carry handguns in killings not ruled self-defense ….”2

An article at PajamasMedia.com has done a good analysis of the VPC “report,” showing that the anti-gun group:

  • Double counts victims to inflate their statistics;
  • Counts people who are still alive today, as though they had been murdered by concealed carry permit holders;
  • Includes deaths that were caused by rifles, beatings or strangulation — in other words, tabulating deaths that were clearly NOT caused by concealed handguns; and
  • In some cases, even counts “murderers” who were later cleared in court as having acted in self-defense.3

According to the Pajamas Media analysis, less than half of the deaths which were attributed to concealed carry holders by the VPC were actually “committed by a permit holder drawing and firing his or her concealed weapon.”4

Less than half?

Yes, less than half of the killings were actually committed by a handgun that was in the possession of a concealed carry permit holder.  That was the analysis as of December 21, 2009.  Sadly, VPC’s reporting has not gotten any better in the following two years.

VPC still embellishing its figures to demonize gun owners

With the Wisconsin law set to go into effect on November 1, 2011, VPC is excoriating the Badger State for ignoring the “bloody record of police deaths, mass shootings, and attempted political assassination” which have supposedly been perpetrated by concealed carry holders.

There are some in the media who are peddling this hype and using VPC’s bogus statistics to scare the public.5  But what goes unnoticed by a gullible media is that VPC is still inflating the number of “concealed killers,” even while they ignore the fact that the average citizen — yes, even the average cop — is much more likely to commit a crime with a gun than is a gun owner with a concealed carry permit.  (More on this below.)

As for inflating the statistics, the VPC:

  • Counts non-permit holders who, in some cases, were even prohibited by law from carrying a firearm;
  • Uses non gun deaths to inflate “concealed carry” killings; and
  • Adds accidental killings to its totals — even including a case where an errant shot was fired at a robber.

Okay, let’s take these up one-by-one.

Non-permit holders prohibited by law from carrying a firearm.  Over the past couple of years, the VPC has counted several non-permit holders in their “concealed carry killers” tally.  But a notable case that is still currently on their website is Jared Loughner, who shot Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords — injuring her and killing six people.

The VPC claims that because of Arizona’s new law which allows law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns without a permit, “Loughner was able to legally carry his pistol to the Giffords event in his assassination attempt.”

But what VPC misses is that this right applies ONLY to law-abiding citizens.  Arizona law clearly states that,

A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:  (1) Carrying a deadly weapon … concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation in the furtherance of a serious offense … [or] (8) Using or possessing a deadly weapon during the commission of any felony offense.”6 (Emphasis Added.)

Thus, Arizona’s law specifically PROHIBITS and DISALLOWS the concealed carry of a handgun with the intent to commit a crime!  Jared Loughner was most certainly NOT able to legally carry his pistol to commit the crimes he perpetrated in January, 2011, as the VPC claims.

But this sloppy “scholarship” (if you can call it that) is just the tip of the iceberg.  Take this next category.

Non gun deaths used to inflate “concealed carry” killings.  VPC has the audacity to inflate its statistics by using murders that were not committed by handguns — and, in some cases, were not even committed by any type of firearm at all.

A classic case is that of Tony Villegas, a Florida man who strangled a woman in her own garage. Did you get that?  She was strangled by Villegas’ hands (presumably) and not his gun.

Commenting on this twisted logic by the VPC, Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman asks, “How can strangulation be blamed on a concealed weapon permit?  If a fisherman kills someone, do we ban fishing rods?”7

Using non gun deaths is not the only way that VPC inflates its statistics.  Consider how the organization slips non permit holders into its “concealed carry killers” totals.

Accidental killings — by non-permit holders.  Accidental shootings have been the long-time shibboleth of anti-gun legislators and media.  They like to demonize all gun owners because of the tragic accidents that occur with firearms.

But if we’re going to follow VPC’s logic, then we should also ban those items which accidentally kill far more people than guns do — things like cars, doctors, trans fats (which lead to heart disease), etc.  It’s strange that the anti-gunners never seem to much care about these other deadly killers, or about the fact that food and water kill more children than guns do.8

Nevertheless, anti-gunners focus on the gun — and the gun only.  To wit, VPC on several occasions lists examples where children have accidentally fired a gun, killing themselves or others.  While these cases are very tragic, one has to ask:  Why are these unintentional shootings being added to the list of “concealed carry killers”?

Well, the answer is probably obvious.  The VPC is desperately trying to inflate its statistics.  And that is why they have included examples where children grabbed a parent’s gun and unintentionally inflicted harm.

Again, these cases are very tragic, but let’s be clear.  One can peruse the newspapers and find examples where the children of POLICE OFFICERS have experienced the same type of tragedy.  So, to follow VPC’s logic, should police officers be disarmed?

Accidental killings — including errant shots fired at criminals.  Now, as mentioned above, some of the accidental killings listed in the VPC report don’t even directly involve the concealed carry holder.  But setting that aside, VPC includes the case of Edward Bell, who accidentally shot an innocent bystander while he was being robbed.

Mr. Bell is a 65-year old man who lives in a very dangerous area of Detroit.  He was working in his yard one day when a gunman held him up and stole his Chevrolet Suburban sport utility vehicle.9

Bell’s mistake, while understandable, is that he fired at the crook after he drove off.  It has long been established in the Common Law that self-defense ends when the attack is over.  While that’s the law, it’s understandable that Mr. Bell — with his adrenaline pumping and being upset that his vehicle was just stolen at gunpoint — wanted to get it back.  Bell fired at the thief, and one of the bullets entered a home and killed Geraldine Jackson, who was cooking dinner at the time.

Certainly, this does not excuse Mr. Bell’s miscalculation.10  But for VPC to include this story as evidence that concealed carry holders are perpetrating crimes is simply disingenuous.  And it ignores the fact that this same problem happens with police officers, as well.

Just last month, police injured two innocent bystanders in San Francisco by firing at a suspect who was running away from them.11  Of course, this sounds similar to Mr. Bell’s case.  Which makes one wonder:  had the bystanders in the Bay area died, would the VPC have included these two police shootings in their “concealed carry killers” totals?

Permit holders more law-abiding than average population — even more so than cops!

The VPC wants to focus on the few bad apples in the concealed carry community and suggest that citizens can’t be trusted to carry firearms.  But using their own logic, they should be arguing for cop disarmament, because they break the law far more often.

As compared to concealed carry permit holders, the average American is almost 8 times more likely to be convicted of crimes and over 40 times more likely to be convicted of burglary — and police officers are almost 800 times more likely to violate the law.12

There are an estimated six million citizens who possess a concealed carry permit.13  The number of legal concealed carriers is probably higher, considering the growing number of states that recognize the right of their citizens to carry without a permit.

Press reports indicate that concealed carry is at an ALL TIME HIGH, even while crime rates have been dropping in the U.S. over the past few years.  Yet, we’ve been hearing the Chicken Little cries of doom and gloom as far back as the mid-1980s, when Florida kicked off the modern concealed carry movement with the enactment of its “shall issue” law.

Prior to its passage in 1987, there was a vigorous debate in the Florida legislature.  Opponents of the law claimed that a carry law would turn the Sunshine State into the “Gunshine State.”  It was a cute jingle, but their dire predictions never materialized.  Murder rates started dropping immediately after the passage of the law, prompting one of the chief opponents, Rep. Ron Silver, to admit that he had been wrong about concealed carry.

Such was the case in Texas, as well.  One of the chief opponents in the Lone Star State was Senior Cpl. Glenn White, who is president of the Dallas Police Association.  White lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because he thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict.

Senior Cpl. White admits, though, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen.  No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.”

It takes guts to look at the evidence and admit you were mistaken.  Kudos to Rep. Silver and Senior Cpl. White for being “man enough” to admit they were wrong.

Who knows, maybe the VPC will own up and admit they were also wrong about all the fear and paranoia they’ve peddled in their faux report.  But then again, don’t hold your breath.

 


1 – While there are 49 states which allow for concealed carry in some shape or form, there are various levels of restrictions in those states.  Wisconsin’s carry law goes into effect on November 1.  At that point, 40 states will have relatively liberal policies regarding concealed carry.  Most of them are known as “shall issue” states, where the officials must issue permits to those who apply — as long as the law does not disqualify the applicants from possessing firearms in some way.  Of these states, four (Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and 98% of Montana) also provide an option for citizens to peacefully carry their firearms without getting a permit or permission from the government.  This is similar to the law in Vermont, which does not require or issue permits at all.  Nine states are “may issue” states which means just that — officials “may” issue a permit to applicants (but they don’t have to do so) — even if the applicant is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.  Only Illinois completely bans concealed carry. 

2 – The “Concealed Carry Killers” report can be found at:  http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

4 – Ibid.

5 – Steven Elbow, “Open or concealed? Gun owners in Wisconsin will soon be able to choose mode of carry,” The Capital Times, June 22, 2011, at:  http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/blog/article_8729ec02-9c46-11e0-91ec-001cc4c002e0.html

6 – Arizona Statutes, Section 13-3102 at:  http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03102.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

7 – Steve Chapman, “False fears about concealed guns — Illinois should give licensed citizens the right to carry around weapons,” Chicago Tribune (March 31, 2011) at:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-31/news/ct-oped-0331-chapman-20110331_1_concealed-carry-permit-holders-brady-campaign

8 – See the Gun Owners of America Fact Sheet at:  http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

9 – At the moment the robbery was occurring, Mr. Bell had no way to know that the thief was actually using a fake gun.

10 – In July 2010, Mr. Bell received one year of probation for the events that occurred on May 12, 2010.  See “Edward Bell to get probation deal in shooting death of grandmother,” The Michigan Standard (July 9, 2010) at:  http://www.michiganstandard.com/edward-bell-to-get-probation-deal-in-shooting-death-of-grandmother

11 – “Two bystanders wounded in S.F. police shooting,” San Francisco Chronicle (Sept. 17, 2011) at:  http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2011/09/17/bystanders-wounded-sf-police-shooting

12 – Crime statistics related to concealed carry permit holders are difficult to come by, as every state does not publish detailed figures relating to their permit holders.  Some (like Texas) do provide these statistics.  Interestingly, a study of concealed carry in Texas over a four year period (2002-2005), found that non concealed carry permit holders are 7.89 times more likely to be convicted of crimes than permit holders — and 40.58 times as likely to be convicted of burglary.  [See Tables 1 and 3 in Howard Nemerov, “Concealed Handguns: Danger or Asset to Texas?” at http://www.prattontexas.com/documents/Texas%20CHL%20Study.pdf.%5D  Moreover, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 4.72% of all officers (state and local) were found to have committed police abuse in 2002.  [Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force [in 2002]” (published 2006) at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf.%5D  Comparing the BJS figures to the Texas data — showing that just over six-thousandths of one percent (.0062%) of permit holders were convicted of crimes in 2002 — one can make some interesting correlations.  While somewhat different, it is interesting to note that police reviewing authorities found that officers had committed crimes at 761 times the rate that the Texas study found for convictions of concealed carry holders for the same criminal acts.  [Compare BJS, “Citizen Complaints” to Nemerov, “Concealed Handguns.”]

13 – Mike Stuckey, “Record numbers licensed to pack heat — Millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns,” MSNBC.com (June 24, 2010) at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat

14 – Clayton E. Cramer and David B. Kopel, “‘Shall Issue:’ The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws” (1994), p. 14.

15 – Scott Parks, “Charges Against Texans with Gun Permits Rise; Law’s supporters, foes disagree on figures’ meaning,” Dallas Morning News (December 23, 1997).

SOURCE

Herman Cain Soars to the Top of the Republican Field

October 2, 2011
But where does he stand on the Second Amendment?

According to a new Zogby poll this week, Herman Cain has soared into the lead and now sits atop the Republican field. Here are the latest results:

  • Herman Cain (28%)
  • Rick Perry (18%)
  • Mitt Romney (17%)
  • Ron Paul (11%)\
  • Newt Gingrich (6%)
  • Jon Huntsman, Jr. (5%)
  • Michele Bachmann (4%)
  • Rick Santorum (2%)
  • Gary Johnson (1%)
Cain is one of a few Republican hopefuls who have taken a strong stand on issues that are important to political conservatives. But where does he stand on the Second Amendment?
Some of the top contenders (such as Rick Perry and Ron Paul) have pro-gun records to run on. Others (such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich) have very mixed or anti-gun records in their haunted past. But Cain has no legislative record.   We have no history in public office by which to judge him — which is why it’s so important that GOA gets an answer back from him on GOA’s Presidential Survey.
Otherwise, we only have bits and pieces of speeches and interviews that Cain has engaged in.   And while those statements help somewhat, they also raise more questions than they answer.
For example, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this year, Cain expressed strong support for gun rights: “I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”
But in answer to a follow-up question asking whether states or local governments should be allowed to impose gun control restrictions, Cain said, “Yes. The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.”
That’s an answer that needs further explanation, especially given the fact that almost one year earlier to the day, the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that states and localities were limited with respect to interfering with a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.
Now, to be fair, it could be that Cain is thinking: As President, it’s none of my business what the states do on guns or any other issue. A true constitutionalist (unlike the current President) would understand that the federal government has limited powers and is restricted to exercising the 17 or 18 powers that are spelled out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Moreover, a true constitutionalist would understand that the states — as James Madison said — have “plenary powers” to try different approaches. As goes the cliché: the states are separate “laboratories” for public policy experiments.
Cain’s statement about state gun control does raise some important questions though:
  • Is he aware that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to impose the Bill of Rights — and specifically the Second Amendment — upon the states?
  • What does he think about the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald? Does he agree that states and localities — subsequent to the Fourteenth Amendment — are constitutionally barred from banning guns?
  • And what about concealed carry outside of one’s home state? As President, would Herman Cain sign or veto a bill like H.R. 2900, which provides for concealed carry recognition amongst the states?
We don’t have answers to these questions, and that’s why GOA’s Presidential Survey is so important. It asks about concealed carry recognition, the renewal of the semi-auto ban and repealing gun restrictions (like the Brady law and various import bans). Plus it gets the candidates’ views on issues such as UN gun control, undoing existing anti-gun Executive Orders and reining in the BATFE.
GOA has sent a survey to Herman Cain, but so far, he has not returned a completed questionnaire. And here’s where you can help.
ACTION: Please contact the Cain campaign and urge him to return GOA’s Presidential Survey. You can contact Herman Cain by cutting-and-pasting the message below after going to his contact page here: http://www.hermancain.com/contact-us
—– Pre-written letter to Herman Cain —–
Dear Mr. Cain:
Congratulations on your rise to the top of the Republican field. According to Zogby, you now lead in the polls.
I know that you have taken some strong constitutional stands in general. However, I would like to know where you stand on the Second Amendment in particular. I know that you have made some positive statements on firearms, but there have been other comments which have caused concern.
Gun Owners of America tells me they have sent you a Presidential Survey, but that you have not yet returned it. Their survey asks about issues that are very important to me including concealed carry recognition, the renewal of the semi-auto ban and repealing gun restrictions (like the Brady law and various import bans).
Would you please return GOA’s Presidential Survey? I look forward to hearing from them that they have your questionnaire in hand.
Sincerely,

The Second Amendment the “black sheep” of the Bill of Rights.

September 23, 2011
Imagine traveling from your home to Massachusetts, and not being able to buy a newspaper or stay at a motel because you’re from out of state.
The ACLU would be up in…well, maybe not “arms”…but they would sure take issue with the violation of your First Amendment rights.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, though, your right to keep and bear arms is often checked at the state line. And it hardly raises an eyebrow among civil libertarians.
Criminals obviously don’t care if they cross state lines to commit a crime, but honest citizens are often required by law to leave behind their self-defense firearm when traveling.
Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill to address this situation.
Click here to read more.

Enraging organized labor and Democrats; Sorry about that…

August 9, 2011

Seems that Labor Unions and Communists, I mean Democrats, sorry. Got a little peeved when a few brave souls decided to do what was right, and said to hell with political correctness.

What happens when the votes are counted after the massive recall election will be a signal to the rest of the nation, and the world, about what really matters to mainstream America anymore.

We can only hope that the voters in Wisconsin will use their brains and not follow the populist rhetoric.

Read more about this HERE.

This election can be viewed as a referendum on contemporary America. On our collective morals, our dignity, and our pride.

Our forefathers were not at all about handouts, or people living at the government trough. They fought, bled, and in many cases died so that we, as a people, have the freedom to succeed or fail as individuals and as a corporate whole.

We are a representative democracy for a reason. We have a Bill of Rights for a reason. We have a Constitution for a reason as well.

Think about it.

This nation has many problems besetting it. Will we allow others to dictate to us what freedoms we shall have, and exercise? Let’s draw up a list of those problems, and in the coming months go a little deeper into what is going on, the implications involved, and history around them.

  • The Economy; Khrushchev’s shoe at the U. N?
  • Race Wars; Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, and the KKK?
  • The Bill of Rights; Private Property, Search and Seizure, The Patriot Act, GCA 1968, Brady Bill, and the Lautenberg abomination?
  • Taxation; “User Fees” and other taxes that are not taxes?
  • Political Correctness; Populism unleashed, full blown social democracy, mob rule anyone?

This is a short list to be sure. However, any of those things could, and very well might trigger a full blown civil war.

Bureaucratic belligerence and official oppression..?

And now we are; Terrorists Again…

August 7, 2011

Terrorists, again, that is what myself and others are being called. Why? Did any of us blow up other people with bombs? Did we hold people hostage unless we got our way..? Nope, none of that. Nothing of the sort actually. We advocated the basic value of paying your bills, and not abusing credit. Hmm…

Definition of TERRORISM

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
ter·ror·ist adjective or noun
ter·ror·is·tic adjective

Examples of TERRORISM

  1. They have been arrested for acts of terrorism.

First Known Use of TERRORISM

1795

Other Government and Politics Terms

agent provocateur, agitprop, autarky, cabal, egalitarianism, federalism, hegemony, plenipotentiary, popular sovereignty, socialism

SOURCE

So, advocating a social norm. That being paying your debts, is now an act of terrorism. At least according to the authoritarians that are running this nation into the ground.

But, it’s creeps like that who also advocate ex post facto law, and suppression of your civil rights. Just last year they were calling myself and others terrorists because we insisted upon exercising our rights, as defined within the Constitution and Bill of Rights…

Some time back I noted here that we are in fact heading toward a full blown depression, and I believe that this asinine response to the fiscal crisis that we are in by our so call leaders will only make it that much worse when it does hit. The politicos in swampy bottom remind me of children and Corporate types that are more focused on finger pointing and blame assignment than on solutions.

It must just be so much easier to blame TEA Party activists than to accept responsibility and personal accountability…

Push for Gun Control Treaty Continues

July 18, 2011

A UN committee wrapped up a week-long series of meetings on a massive treaty that could undermine both U.S. sovereignty and the Second Amendment.  This is the third round of meetings by the so-called “preparatory committee” on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as the UN gears up for final negotiations in 2012.

The most comprehensive treaty of its kind, the ATT would regulate weapons trade throughout the world on everything from battleships to bullets.

And as information trickles out of Turtle Bay in New York City, it is obvious the UN is getting more clever about taking the focus off of “small arms.”

With an eye cast in the direction of the U.S.—in particular, toward the U.S. Senate which must ratify the treaty—the most recent Draft Paper for the Arms Trade Treaty recognizes in its preamble “the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.”

That statement, taken by itself, is troubling.  Americans’ right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not it is “recognized” by some UN committee.  The right enshrined in the Second Amendment predates our own Constitution, and does not need an international stamp of approval.

But the preamble aside, the scope of the treaty is what’s most damaging.  Though negotiations will continue for another year, some provisions are certain to be contained in the final draft.

The ATT will, at the very least, require gun owner registration and microstamping of ammunition.  And it will define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds so much as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license.

It would also likely include a ban on many semi-automatic firearms (i.e., the Clinton gun ban) and demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.

Any suggestion that the treaty might not impact all firearms—right down to common hunting rifles—was thrown out the window after seeing the reaction to the Canadian government’s motion that hunting rifles be exempted from the treaty.

The Canadian representative caused a stir among the other delegates this week when he proposed that the treaty include the following language: “Reaffirming that small arms have certain legitimate civilian uses, including sporting, hunting, and collecting purposes.”

While Canadian gun owners were pleased with even the slightest movement by its government to protect gun rights, the proposed language is yet another indication that ALL firearms are “on the table.”

Feeble as it is, Canadian proposal was viewed as a major wrench thrown in the works, and had the anti-gunners crying foul.

Kenneth Epps is a representative with the Canadian anti-gun group known as Project Plowshares.  According to Postmedia News, Epps said Canada’s move is hampering efforts to forge a comprehensive global arms control regime.

Noting that there is little difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle, Epps said, “The problem is that once you introduce exemptions, others will do the same.  It’s the thin edge of the wedge….From a humanitarian perspective, all firearms need to be controlled, and that’s the bottom line.”

Such statements are eagerly welcomed by the Obama administration.  Since it has been largely stymied in pushing gun control in Congress, U.S. negotiators will push the envelope as far as they can.

The U.S. Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, a key negotiator of the ATT, is anti-gun former Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of California.  Tauscher said last year that her team at the State Department “will work between now and the UN Conference in 2012 to negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty.”

In 2009, newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed the position of the Bush administration (which voted against the treaty in 2008) and stated that “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area.”

International standards, however, may not be the only, or even the primary, objective.  Former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, observes that, “The hidden agenda of a lot of the people who sought to negotiate a small arms treaty really had less to do with reducing dangers internationally and a lot more to do with creating a framework for gun control statutes at the national level.”

Bolton explains that pressure from the groups agitating for the treaty—groups such as Amnesty International, Oxfam, and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA)—is geared toward constraining the freedoms of countries that recognize gun rights.  “And specifically, and most importantly, [to] constrain the United States,” Bolton said.

Negotiators, from abroad and within the Obama administration, view arms control as  protecting human rights, rather than seeing civilian disarmament for what it is—the favorite tool of despots, dictators and tyrants to maintain power by engaging in mass murder and genocide.

And, perversely, in many instances those resisting an oppressive, genocidal regime would be held in the same light as criminals and terrorists and be legally prohibited under the ATT from purchasing weapons.

U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) makes this point in a letter he drafted to President Obama: “[T]he underlying philosophy of the Arms Trade Treaty is that transfers to and from governments are presumptively legal, while transfers to non-state actors…are, at best, problematic.”

Sen. Moran’s letter, in which he is joined by other pro-gun Senators, warned that any treaty “that seeks in any way to regulate the domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, and related items would be completely unacceptable to us.”

U.S. freedom is clearly in the sights of the ATT.  The time to take action is now, before the treaty moves into final negotiations.

ACTION: Urge your Senators to oppose any UN effort to impose restrictions on the Second Amendment, and to sign on to Sen. Moran’s letter to President Obama in opposition to the ATT.

Click here to send your Senators a prewritten message.

Rep Mccarthy introducing national gun control legislation following

June 15, 2011

Continuing the “Stuck on Stupid” agenda of those that detest freedom, liberty, and the Constitution Representative Carolyn McCarthy is back touting Chuck Schumer style treason against her oath. While that’s nothing new for the usual suspects we must always be vigilant, and stay on top of things. A lack of vigilance is what turned our system of law on it’s head when Lautenburg snuck in ex post facto law into the Domestic Violence law named after his pathetic pompous and politically correct mysandryic self.

A House bill that could drastically overhaul the nation’s gun control laws and strengthen federal power over states’ handling of individuals’ background checks is expected to be introduced today by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, The Daily Caller has learned.

McCarthy is expected to drop the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 — a  near-identical companion to that of fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer’s Senate bill — according to sources familiar with the legislation.

SOURCE

Well, well, well… Here we go again!

June 6, 2011

Politics. It’s an ever interesting field for many, and it does have a direct impact on our lives. What do you look for in a politician?

Are you a “bring home the bacon” supporter type? As in what will this or that person do for my home area?

Perhaps you are a singular social issue type. Mysandry (male hating sexist that believes that a woman can do no wrong.) Or you beat dead horse’s over gay rights, and look for insinuations or attacks at every opportunity based upon a belief. Then toss out red herring’s as though they are facts..?

Perhaps you are really into the Constitution and Bill of Rights? (Yup, I plead guilty to belonging in this group!)

Then there are always those that are going to save the world. After all, why should some have more than others..? Why are some more powerful than others, and so on goes the line. All Gore and the man made global warming extremist’s are a fair example of this group. Even if they are going to get rich by proclaiming themselves our saviors…

Are you an anarchist pretending to be a libertarian? A Libertarian with a solid streak of anarchist inside of you..?

Believe in pure democracy? That the majority position should always rule? Does the Utilitarian come out in you more often than not?

Just food for thought…

 

Memorial Day…

May 29, 2011

Memorial Day was originally about World War One. It has come to symbolize the ultimate sacrifice made by all Veterans though, from every conflict, that have died in service to our nation.

Long time readers know that I am the son of a Veteran killed in action. That was a long time ago. Yet, my Fathers sacrifice, like that of so many others is no less relevant today than it was in 1953. Nor are the deaths of all those that died that we might live free. I feel more of less like it is a duty to remember those that died, and what they died for. Hence, this blog is primarily devoted to politics, social issues, and the American way of life.

Is America perfect? Of course not. We have made many mistakes over the course of time. Yet America, unlike many other nations actually does work at correcting things. That, among other things, is our legacy.

I for one, believe that we have a duty to protect and defend those things that others paid the ultimate sacrifice for. Things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The ideas expressed and debated in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Inalienable Rights, and things of that nature. Hence, I take umbrage with those that I consider to be traitorous. Usually noted here as “The Usual Suspects.” I am a philosophical Libertarian, and will ever remain so.

I owe that to those that gave all, and to my ancestors.