Posts Tagged ‘Bill of Rights’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

7th Circus Court of Appeals

June 4, 2009

It would appear that yes, once again, a federal court needs to review basic civics. I held off on posting about this issue yesterday simply because more review was needed. The Prima Facie situation is really quite simple. Federal overrules State, overrules County, overrules Local authority. Social constructionist will do anything to get their way though. Be it alcohol prohibition, drugs, guns, or hunting on Sunday. There are simply put, hordes out there that know better than you how you should live your lives!

Some might argue that it is in fact the job of the courts to do that very thing. Others, like myself, would argue that the fundamental duty of government at all levels is the protection of the integrity of the individuals liberty. That, is the basis of the Bill of Rights. Yet, once again, a federal court seeks domination over the will of the people and those that founded this nation.

Fairfax, Va. – Today, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday’s decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.

“The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year’s landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans’. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The Seventh Circuit claimed it was bound by precedent from previous decisions. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don’t prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

“It is wrong that the residents of Chicago and Oak Park continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” Cox concluded. “It’s time for the fundamental right of self-defense to be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.

SOURCE

In light of previous rulings, well documented elsewhere, soon to be Justice Sotomayor should be expected to recuse herself when this comes before the Supreme Court. Why do I doubt that will happen?

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on 7th Circus Court of Appeals

Colorado Gun Control law…

May 18, 2009

As I opened up my email this morning I saw where Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed a new law that would have allowed CCW permit holders to forgo yet even more background checks. The article in the Denver Post is surprisingly balanced. A very rare thing for that organization these days. So rare in fact that I have to believe that the Commissars playing at the propaganda, I mean editing game, must have been off sipping lattes as they listened to their fearless leader address the folks at Harvard University when this story hit the wire.

That said, any time that I see Tom Mauser praising something red flags immediately go up the flagpole. He is, after all, a convicted criminal, that supports the taking of civil rights for others convicted of misdemeanors and infractions. As well as ex post facto law. He’s a hypocrite at best, and full blown immoral if taken in the worse sense. His debate against Ari Armstrong on television one night that I watched about a related issue was an eye opener to just how warped his thinking truly is. The comments from his allies on this blog and others over the years reveal just how ill they all are with the affliction of Hopolophobia.

I found the most interesting, and enlightening aspect about this particular issue not so much in the article, but in the comments. Be sure to link over, and read through them. One method of spotting “plants” that I have developed over the years is the phrase “While I generally support…” Insert the right to bear arms, abortion, small government, freedom of speech, and myriad other positions what those people really are is the exact opposite. Hence, I call them plants. Their only reason to being a part of any discussion is to camouflage their true, anti freedom, anti Bill of Rights positions.

This entire argument is not, I repeat not, about Gun Control. That is, at best, a Red Herring. It is about the Bill of Rights, the Colorado Constitution, and Unalienable Rights. Take any part of the package from the whole, and what you have left is a pathway to tyranny. The Democrat / Socialist strategy is the “Death of a thousand cuts.” Bill Ritter just rubbed salt into many of those cuts that have already been inflicted upon the American people, and the people of Colorado in particular. Greg Brophy, and others tried to apply a bandage to the bleeding, and I applaud those that at least tried to help staunch the flow of life from the tree of liberty.

RITTER VETOES GUN BILL

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

H.R. 2159 making the Constitution toilet tissue

May 11, 2009

I have many times said that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a package. Take one part from them, and the whole thing falls apart. The ultimate goal of the authoritarians is the dismantling of our way of life. As noted on another WordPress blog this morning the failed “communitarian movement” sought, as a base statement that individual liberty is subject to communal liberty. That scholarly work was from 1996 and contrasted militia movements with communitarian’s as well as pointing out the similarities.

It seems that although the so-called movement has gone away it’s ideology has reached the halls of power. As expressed in proposed law by those that just absolutely hate liberty and freedom H.R. 2159 will deny rights to people simply based upon suspicion. The obamanites are learning though, they have tossed in leftest groups this time as well as those that they previously had branded as home grown terrorists. Read on…

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential “threats,” could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential “extremism.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is “appropriately suspected” of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general “has a reasonable belief” that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.

Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being “dangerous.”

Are you ready for a second Declaration of Independence? Sign the petition promoting true freedom once again!

“[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” objected Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “A ‘known terrorist?’ Look, if the guy has committed an act of terrorism, we shouldn’t have to worry about him being able to buy a gun; he should be in jail!”

Pratt further warned WND of the potential overlap of H.R. 2159 and a recent DHS memo that warned against potential violence from “right-wing extremists,” such as those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty.

“By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”

;

WND Exclusive

HOMELAND INSECURITY

Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing ‘extremists’

Bill empowers attorney general to forbid firearms for those ‘suspected dangerous’

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 13 Comments »

Politics, and blindfolds, as in Lady Justice

May 7, 2009

The impostor in chief is about to have the opportunity to not only make history yet again but to put his stamp on generations to come. How so? With at minimum one appointment to the Supreme Court.

Justice is supposed to be blind, not filled with emotion. Not issuing rulings based upon personal desires, but upon law. This is most important when one is a Justice on a Supreme Court, be that of an individual state or the United States Supreme Court. The rulings that are made in those places have an effect all the way down to the individual citizen. They determine how one lives, or dies too as far as that goes.

All too often high courts thwart the intentions of the people that had laws passed in order to achieve their own (the courts) personal agenda. Be that a State Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. Of note, or example, would be the Colorado Supreme Court trashing the Tabor Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court by endorsing ex post facto law that also takes away unalienable rights for less than felony indiscretions. Or mysandry based regulation or law founded within the realm of political correctness.

Part of the duty of those courts is the protection of minority groups, be those racial, political or based upon gender. We have all but put away the arguments based upon racial superiority in America, at least within the legal concept. Racism does still exist in America, as well as everywhere else in the world but we are making headway on that front where as in many other parts of the world it is lip service at best. On the other two fronts we have not really changed much at all. We have simply exchanged one evil for the extreme opposite. That, is where things become incredibly difficult when choosing a Supreme Court Justice.

What follows is from yesterdays Patriot Post about this subject. You read, and decide if someone should be appointed, for life, to a position of near unbridled authority based upon the contents of their crotch, personal penchants, and ability to go with the flow. Or, upon personal integrity, honor, and sense of duty.

“[J]udges, therefore, should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men.” –Johns Adams

Rule of men: “Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice (David) Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president, so I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” –President Barack Obama

From the gun grabbers: “[T]he Supreme Court has ruled in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered … and we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions that people have about what gun safety means.” –Nancy Pelosi

Non Compos Mentis: “Welcome to Cinco de Cuatro — Cinco de Mayo at the White House.” –Barack Obama (click here for video)

Quite taken with himself: “Everywhere I go, crowds spontaneously assemble. They start to cheer, whether I go to a play on Broadway or I’m going home to Wilmington, Delaware. I walk on the train. People stand up and clap.” –Vice President Joe Biden

Tacky: “If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.” –Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who fits in just fine with his new party **”Specter’s use of Kemp’s death is not only tasteless but nonsensical. If Republicans killed Kemp by blocking cancer research, how is it that the research they blocked prolonged Specter’s life?” –James Taranto

“That President Obama has made ’empathy’ with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process. Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with ’empathy’ for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law.” –Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

“Mr. Obama will make Supreme Court history, all right. He will become the first president in American history to make lawlessness an explicit standard for Supreme Court justices. … He has boldly proclaimed that he intends to make sure his nominees to the Supreme Court don’t harbor any crusty fealty to the written Constitution, or the millenniums of Western law that undergird its principles, or to the timeless truths that underlie our Declaration of Independence.” –Judicial Confirmation Network counsel Wendy E. Long

“There is a reason that Lady Justice wears a blindfold. Justice is supposed to be blind to the race, gender, finances, politics — and every other ’empathy’-eliciting — characteristic of those who seek it in good faith.” –columnist Carol Platt Liebau

“It is dangerous in this day and age to use the word ‘fascism’ lightly. Liberals sling around the term ‘fascism’ without regard to its meaning — for the Left, ‘fascism’ applies to everything from religious social perspectives to conservative tax cut prescriptions. But economic fascism has a precise, defined meaning. And Barack Obama’s economic policy fulfills that meaning in every conceivable way.” –radio talk-show host Jerry Doyle

“Liberals do not win elections for Republicans. Conservatives win elections. Whenever conservatives try to placate liberals and show how sensitive and caring and in touch with the feelings and concerns of the other party they are, they lose. But when Republicans stand on principles and demonstrate conviction and give evidence that their ideas work, they win.” –columnist Cal Thomas

“The killer virus for Republicans hasn’t been intolerance inside the party for moderates. What cost Republicans control of the White House and Congress was alleged conservatives behaving too much like Democrats, especially on spending.” –columnist Brendan Miniter

All quotes by former Congressman Jack Kemp (1935-2009)

“As the GOP stumbles around Washington trying to be the party of Herbert Hoover, it’s sad to see so many Republicans drifting so far and so fast from the Reagan model that helped pave the way for the great, non-inflationary economic and jobs expansion of the past 25 years.”

“Democrats are quick to draw parallels with the stock-market crash of 1929. The irony is that it’s mostly the Democrats who want to repeat the mistakes that turned the Crash of ’29 into the Great Depression.”

“The first order of business must be debunking the Democrats’ notion that higher taxes will lead to a more prosperous America.”

“When you tax something you get less of it, and when you reward something you get more of it.”

“Our friends in the other party say the economy is moving forward, and it is. But it is moving like a ship dragging an anchor, the anchor of high taxes, excessive regulation and big government.”

Will the man that refuses to show his real birth certificate choose wisely, or rather based upon political correctness and expediency? Only time will tell.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Freedom of speech, for some at least…

May 2, 2009

Freedom of speech or expression is an enshrined right placed within the Bill of Rights. That said, recently there have been way to many occurrences by those that see it as an anachronism. A simple web search will turn up more instances than I can possibly cite for reference but you are free to do so if you wish.

Having said that, I believe that the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights is a complete package. You can’t pick and choose which parts you will support, and those which you will not. They, each right, support one another. Bust the package, and you break the whole thing.

Does this mean that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater? Well, if the place is in fact on fire then I would submit that giving warning about it is in fact a civic duty. Does it mean that members of, by example the Ku Klux Klan or the New Black Panthers can spread what they consider to be legitimate ideology? Yes, it does, like it or not.

If we as a people allow one group to be silenced then any group can be subjected to the same treatment. Think about it.

Free Speech for some:

Former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo was recently invited to the University of North Carolina to share his views on U.S. immigration policy and tuition subsidies. Even before he began his talk in a UNC classroom on April 14, protesters stood with signs and banners, shouted obscenities and otherwise behaved rudely.

Just a few minutes into his speech, when Tancredo made a reference to illegal immigrants, demonstrators moved to the front of the room, blocking the audience’s view of Tancredo with a banner that read: “No one is illegal.” Seconds later, one of the protesters broke a window. University security officers, standing by, shut down the event.

That was it. The speech was vetoed by uncivil, violent dissenters intent on denying Tancredo’s willing audience their right to hear his message.

An angry, chanting mob at UNC labeled Tancredo a racist and a radical. He’s most certainly neither. He’s opposed to illegal immigration, regardless of race. And there’s hardly anything radical about securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. What is radical in this instance is the behavior of these student demonstrators and their implicit notion that the U.S. should have open borders.

Their beef that “no one is illegal” is an offense to liberal, politically correct phraseology. So let’s rephrase it. The immigration status of people who cross our borders or remain in this country without the permission of our government is illegal. There, is that better?

If you treasure our Constitution’s guarantee of your individual right to freedom of speech, you must necessarily extend that protection to others — including those with whom you disagree. You must also take the risk that other people will listen to them, just as you want people to listen to you. If you refuse to make such allowances, your hypocrisy undermines the fundamental principle of free speech and endangers its very existence.

The First Amendment is not absolute in any of its applications, from speech to religion to assembly. Libelous speech is not protected; religious freedom does not extend to human sacrifice; and freedom of assembly doesn’t give you license to trespass on someone else’s property. But one’s free speech cannot legally be muzzled simply because someone else disapproves of it.

How ironic that left-wing college activism was launched at the University of California- Berkeley in the 1960s as the “Free Speech Movement.”

For today’s college lefties, free speech is a one-way street. They justify this double standard with an arrogant, self-absorbed, self- righteous belief that the ends justify the means, that they alone have a monopoly on truth, and that heretics cannot be tolerated. The broken glass that halted Tancredo’s speech is a symbolic flashback to the forebears of these UNC student thugs: the SS and Hitler Youth gangs that terrorized Jews. The violence is only different in degree. Student lefties have pushed pies in the faces of conservative speakers on campus. On principle, that is no less an affront to the First Amendment than clubs or guns.

These militant brats childishly call others “fascists” without understanding the meaning of the term while behaving like fascists themselves. But even more inexcusable is the complicity of grownups, those feckless university administrators responsible for protecting dialog and inquiry at centers of higher learning who allow students to stifle free speech.

SOURCE

Tom Tancredo: We should stop flu at our borders

Silent protest at PC marks Tancredo talk in contrast to the pure thuggery above.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Immigration, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Wag the Dog

April 18, 2009

Since getting absolutely hammered every time they mention increased gun control the impostor in chief and his administration is taking a play from the Clinton era, and wagging the attack dogs of the mainstream media at the American people.Read on…

President Obama, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Attorney General Eric Holder are downplaying gun control, at least for the time being. But the so-called “news” media have begun hammering away on guns with the same intensity they did in the early 1990s, when the outcomes of the Brady bill and “assault weapons” debates were still undecided.

You have to wonder why the media think they, and not the public, know best what direction the country should take. Annual polls show that Americans’ confidence in newspapers and television news has decreased to a mere 24 percent. During the last few years of President George W. Bush’s administration, the media sanctimoniously and incessantly reminded us that the president’s approval ratings were near the lowest in history, yet in every single year of the Bush administration, Americans’ confidence in the president exceeded their confidence in the media. Even with the nation’s recent economic problems, largely blamed on big banks, Americans have more confidence in banks than in the media.

Yet, in their supreme arrogance, many in the media still believe the American people cannot function, that society and perhaps civilization itself will collapse, without the moral and intellectual guidance of those who, having been to journalism school, are the world’s leading experts on all subjects under the sun, including gun control.

It must be strange on their planet.

For example, take ABC “20/20’s” recent attempt to convince us that neither good private citizens nor police officers are able to use guns effectively for protection, but somehow criminals are. At the end of her not-as-clever-as-she-thought hatchet job on guns, Diane Sawyer ever-so-smugly added, “by the way, if you’re wondering where are all those studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well, we couldn’t find one reliable study.”

As if they even bothered to look.

The landmark study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, showing hundreds of thousands of successful defensive gun uses annually, was reliable enough to be endorsed by the leading anti-gun criminologist of the day, the late Marvin Wolfgang. And, as economist John Lott noted in a Fox News rebuttal to “20/20’s” pablum on Wednesday, “There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime [under Right-to-Carry laws]. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.”

Lott could have mentioned, but modestly did not, that his own comprehensive study of Right-to-Carry has survived a cacophony of half-baked attacks by the usual suspects. And whatever the results of Diane Sawyer’s contrived and anything-but-reliable classroom experiment, designed to “prove” ABC’s cockamamie theories about self-defense, every day in this country private citizens defend themselves and their families with guns.

Then there’s the delirious commentary of Dan Rodericks in the March 12 Baltimore Sun. He writes, “After the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and again after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, many of us believed the country would turn against guns – assault-style weapons and handguns in particular.”

“Assault-style weapons?” What do they have to do with those crimes? The “assault weapon” issue did not even exist until several years after the attempt on President Reagan, which involved a small-caliber revolver.

And why is Americans’ support for gun control lower than it has been in ages? Rodericks is sure he has the answer. According to Rodericks, Americans oppose gun control not because they believe in freedom and self-protection, and not because they know criminals don’t obey gun laws, but because “There’s a pessimism and cynicism about the kind of society we’ve become and the uncertain future we face. . . . It’s an epidemic of resignation.” Translation: “I’ve been to journalism school, and I’m exasperated by the fact that the vast majority of Americans still don’t agree with me.” It brings to mind the late ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, in 1994, characterizing voters as “angry two-year-old(s)” throwing a “temper tantrum” by voting Republicans into control of Congress, against Jennings’ wishes, of course.

More drivel comes from the pen of that most superficial and trite of opinion spouters, PBS’ Mark Shields. On Sunday, Shields wrote that Congress doesn’t impose more gun control because its members “lack . . . . backbone.” Congress, says Shields, allowed the “assault weapon” ban to expire because congressmen are in need of a “a vertebrae transplant.” Oh, how we would like to see Shields say that straight to the face of Rep. John Dingell, Sen. Max Baucus, or scores of others on Capitol Hill, who have forgotten more about the issue than Shields will ever know.

Of course, no modern media blitzkrieg against guns would be complete without Michael Isikoff, during the 1990s the Washington Post’s hit man on “assault weapons” and now performing the same function at Newsweek. In the April 20 issue of that magazine, Isikoff wrote about Mexico’s drug cartels being armed with “high-powered assault weapons” from the United States, when it has already been established that most of the cartels’ weapons are not “assault weapons,” and only a minority have been traced to the United States. But what can you expect from a “reporter” whose “in-depth” research consists of skimming the Brady Campaign’s latest press release?

Thanks to Isikoff on two things, however. If there were any doubt about the Obama Administration’s eventual gun control plans, Isikoff says that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), author of bills in earlier congresses to drastically expand the former “assault weapon” ban, “pressed Obama transition officials to take up the issue” but they told her “that’s not for now, that’s for later.” (Emphasis added.)

And Isikoff quotes Brady Campaign’s Peter Hamm as saying “When you see people like Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, ‘What’s up?'” (Emphasis added, again.)

Writing for the largest newspaper in America’s largest city, and hopelessly out of touch with America west of the Lincoln Tunnel, the New York Times‘ Bob Herbert on Tuesday expressed skepticism about Right-to-Carry, particularly on college campuses (because, as John Lott has noted, legislation to allow carrying on campuses is making progress in some states). But, unable to come to grips with the fact that people really do use guns to protect themselves successfully every day, Herbert defaulted to whining that America is “a society that is neither mature nor civilized enough to do anything” about the criminal use of guns.

And a Washington Post editorial the same day, dedicated to portraying the Virginia Tech murders as justification for gun show legislation in Virginia—even though no gun involved in the murders came from a gun show—went on to claim that “None of the gunmen [in recent multiple victim shootings] could have done as much damage had he [sic] not had access to guns.” Apparently the Post’s editorial staffers have been too busy typing up opinions to read the paper’s news section; otherwise, they would know that the worst mass murders in American history have been committed with jet airliners, explosives and flames, not with firearms.

Whether the media will be able to prod the most powerful elected officials in the country into attacking the Second Amendment remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, is it any wonder that the American people hold the media in such low regard?

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Men's Issues, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

CIFTA, and the NRA

April 18, 2009

CIFTA is yet another attempt by those that hate American freedom and liberty to undermine our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The NRA acts yet again like a broken clock. I can’t wait for the G.O.A. assessment…

During an official visit to Mexico on April 16, President Obama announced his support for Senate ratification of an inter-American treaty on firearms trafficking. In response, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox issued the following statement:

“The NRA is well aware of the proposed Organization of American States treaty on firearms trafficking, known by its Spanish initials as CIFTA. The NRA monitored the development of this treaty from its earliest days, but contrary to news reports today, the NRA did not ‘participate’ at the meeting where the treaty was approved.

“The treaty does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict ‘lawful ownership and use’ of firearms. Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners

SOURCE

Well, I didn’t have to wait long! 😀

President Obama Continues Assault on the Second Amendment
By John Velleco
Director of Federal Affairs

President Obama is determined to eradicate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.

In recent meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, the American President promised to urge the U.S. Senate to pass an international arms control treaty.

The treaty, cumbersomely titled the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials” (known by the acronym CIFTA), was signed by President Bill Clinton, but never ratified by the Senate.

President Obama is hoping to capitalize on an increased Democrat majority and push its quick ratification.  The U.S. is one of four nations that have not ratified the treaty.President Obama with Mexican President Felipe Calderón

If ratified and the U.S. is found not to be in compliance with any provisions of the treaty — such as a provision that would outlaw reloading ammunition without a government license — President Obama would be empowered to implement regulations without Congressional approval.

Supporters of CIFTA claim the treaty is not a threat to the Second Amendment, but only a “symbolic” gesture.  But symbolic of what?  That America really is to blame for problems of violence and drug gangs in a foreign country?  That the American government can be pressed by a foreign country to alter the Second Amendment?

If the kind of “change” that Obama wants is for the United States to take its marching orders from third world countries regarding our gun rights, we’re in big trouble!

The fact is, this treaty will do NOTHING to combat the violence in Mexico, but it will go a LONG WAY toward eroding our ability to protect the right to keep and bear arms through our elected officials. [Read more about CIFTA]

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Before it was patriotic to dissent

April 13, 2009

Before the recent election it was considered patriotic to engage in dissent. However, since the election that has changed apparently. Indeed, it appears that most, if not all citizens that are not completely in line with the current administration are being squarely placed within the sights of government enforcers. What follows is a recently unclassified document. It is, at minimum disturbing. Dissent and freedom of speech are fine, at least so long as you are into boot licking…

IA-0257-09
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political
Climate Fueling Resurgence in
Radicalization and Recruitment
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information
should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize
investigative activities.
(U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to
FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized
DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.
(U) All U.S. person information has been minimized. Should you require the minimized U.S. person information, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at
IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.
(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current
Economic and Political Climate Fueling
Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
7 April 2009
(U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis
Division. Coordinated with the FBI.
(U) Scope
(U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the
Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the
phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is
provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement
officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks
against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be
conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States
Government sponsorship.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 2 of 9
(U) Key Findings
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry
out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic
downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability
to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing
extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and
government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the
1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an
economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to
U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the
number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in
violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,
and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased
government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and
disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.
* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 3 of 9
— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement.
— (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities.
(U) Current Economic and Political Climate
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are
driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small
terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a
driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.
— (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing
extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction
reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment
conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a
Jewish-controlled “one world government.”
(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the
economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors,
and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate
conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics
are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize
those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to
accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.
(U) Historical Presidential Election
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment
tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential
administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and
citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 4 of 9
(U//FOUO) Perceptions on Poverty and Radicalization
(U//FOUO) Scholars and experts disagree over poverty’s role in motivating violent radicalization or
terrorist activity. High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing
an individual’s susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute
for Economic Research, there appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment
status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children—specifically xenophobia and
antidemocratic ideals.
ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns
and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the
present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in
expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential
sympathizers.
— (U//LES) Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical,
expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president,
but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the
election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some
threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement
interceded.
(U) Revisiting the 1990s
(U//FOUO) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the
1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility
and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s
opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those
with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as
well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion,
inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to
the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an
increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,
and infrastructure sectors.
(U) Economic Hardship and Extremism
(U//FOUO) Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and
anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent
antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending
economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to
attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving
declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the
U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of
a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could
motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.
These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist
individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and
extremist members of the militia movement.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 5 of 9
(U) Illegal Immigration
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception
that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to
work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that
these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.
(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and
white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy
generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment,
but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed
against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a
perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite
individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely
would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.
— (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have
observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.
— (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and
explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had
discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.
— (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after
communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants
crossing into the United States.
(U) Legislative and Judicial Drivers
(U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a
threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition
stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such
activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to
facilitate criminal activity and violence.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government
was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law
that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the
1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of
various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the
confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 6 of 9
— (U//FOUO) On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year
requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar
legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging
and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law;
nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control
legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and
paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.
(U//FOUO) Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred
rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of
ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further
exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity.
Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates
attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move
at this time.
(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested
subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of
Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear
arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the
precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and
parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent
extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization
tool.
(U) Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be
magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to
the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist
countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some
rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world
government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution,
thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other
countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing
states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.
— (U//FOUO) Fear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories
characterizing the U.S. Government’s role as either complicit in a foreign
invasion or acquiescing as part of a “One World Government” plan inspired
extremist members of the militia movement to target government and military
facilities in past years.
— (U//FOUO) Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members
in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 7 of 9
(U//FOUO) Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing
extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information
from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist
cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.
— (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most
significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from
any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.
— (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the
dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone
wolves carrying out acts of violence.
— (U//FOUO) Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas,
and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence
of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.
ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal
facilities and infrastructure targets.
— (U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and
have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability
to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to
pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and
corporations as a part of subversion strategy.
(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from
military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the
capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out
violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers
of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now
learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement
that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
joined extremist groups.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 8 of 9
(U) Outlook
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo
the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and
returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain
economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating
rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.
To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength.
(U//FOUO) Unlike the earlier period, the advent of the Internet and other informationage
technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to
information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of
individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and
groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe. New
technologies also permit domestic extremists to send and receive encrypted
communications and to network with other extremists throughout the country and abroad,
making it much more difficult for law enforcement to deter, prevent, or preempt a violent
extremist attack.
(U//FOUO) A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in
limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today’s climate.
— (U//FOUO) Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal
building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership
and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced
themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received
after the bombing.
— (U//FOUO) Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the
millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots
linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary
training, and militia frustration that the “revolution” never materialized.
— (U//FOUO) Although the U.S. economy experienced a significant recovery and
many perceived a concomitant rise in U.S. standing in the world, white
supremacist groups continued to experience slight growth.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next
several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing
extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political,
economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 9 of 9
(U) Reporting Notice:
(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal
activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at
202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and
critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the
NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI
regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available,
each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of
equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated
point of contact.
(U) For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the
DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.
(U) Tracked by: CRIM-040300-01-05, CRIM-040400-01-05, TERR-010000-01-05

SOURCE

Readability is a lot better using the link. This is dangerous beyond belief.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, Military Science, mysandry, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 10 Comments »

Pelosi made it official to ABC: ‘We want registration.’

April 9, 2009

Register, confiscate, then collect, and oppress. The history of gun control!

Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dropped a verbal bombshell in the middle of an interview on Good Morning America April 7. Responding to a question from ABC’s Robin Roberts, Pelosi said that while Congress apparently does not want to take anyone’s guns away, “We want them registered.”

Read About It: The Examiner
In recent months, the Supreme Court has ruled in a very- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered.

Read About It: NewsBusters

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Historical Quotes, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Stupid is as Stupid Does, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

Senator Kerry–Border Security “No”, Gun Control “Yes”

April 4, 2009

Well just what can you really expect from someone that put himself in for medals, then threw them away, but the medals were actually someone else’s, and also negotiated with enemy government representatives while still serving as a reserve officer in the United States Navy? John Kerry deserves to be tarred and feathered, then hung until dead, period. Not a United States Senator that is still determined to undermine and destroy the Constitution if not the United States of America. He has been in league with the international felon George Soros to that end, and now this?

With escalating drug-related violence continuing unabated in Mexico, anti-gun elected officials in Washington continue to let no tragedy go unexploited.

The latest to add his voice to the anti-gun chorus should come as a surprise to no one, as Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) has a long voting record in support of gun control.

This week, Kerry called sending National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border “premature and possibly counterproductive.” But Kerry had no qualms in supporting additional restrictions on law-abiding American gun owners. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/kerry-mexico-failed-state/)

For a fleeting moment Kerry sounded a hopeful tone in his remarks in El Paso when he noted the need to “work harder to enforce existing gun laws against exporting weapons across international borders.” However, Kerry reverted to his usual anti-gun talking points as he called for a ban on imported “assault rifles” (presumably he meant semi-auto “assault weapons”) into the U.S.—a ban that has existed since 1989.

Senator Kerry is either confused about what an “assault rifle” is, is ignorant of the parameters of the existing import ban, or more likely, simply wants to expand his gun control crusade. In either case, and as noted earlier, none of this should come as a surprise from a failed presidential candidate who tried to camouflage his decades long voting record against the Second Amendment by trying to reinvent himself as a “sportsman.” Senator Kerry’s plan to stop the international trafficking of firearms into Mexico by banning legal importation of firearms into the United States simply defies logic and common sense.

American gun owners should be outraged when a sitting U.S. Senator dismisses tightening up our nation’s border security as “possibly counterproductive”, but has no qualms about passing additional restrictions that will be avoided and evaded by criminals.

SOURCE

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »