Posts Tagged ‘Hoplophobia Mental Illness’

And about that pesky 2ed Amendment…

September 29, 2016

This is stolen from a Facebook Friend Cary Cartter, who posted it as follows.

A blogging friend, Douglas Gibbs, teaches Constitutional Classes in California. Here’s his 2nd Amendment guide:

Lesson 14

Militias and Standing Armies

2nd Amendment: Keep and Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility. Like anything else you own, if you give away your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can no longer exercise those rights.

In the Washington, D.C. v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

During the early years of the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The States have Original Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that. The argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.

Complacency, then, becomes our greatest enemy.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Understanding that the Framers expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights.

In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.

The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important, too. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Some will argue the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.

The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of unorganized militia, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.

The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void. Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and according to the 2nd Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If “shall not be infringed” applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all persons are allowed to possess a firearm. The words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.

The reason the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.

The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.

In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.

If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.

Breaking down the language used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.

The 2nd Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia.” The immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today’s culture recognizes it as meaning, “A militia under the control of the government,” or “regulated by government agencies,” or “managed by federal law.”

All of the above definitions are wrong.

As discussed regarding the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word “regulated” does not mean “controlled or restricted by government.” The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Webster defined regulated as: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that the word “regulate” in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of “regulated,” revealing that today’s most common definition was the “least used” definition during the time of the writing of the United States Constitution.

Since “regulate” did not mean “to control and restrict,” but instead meant “to put in good order,” that means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.

The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes.

To put the militia in good order, Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow. The authority to Congress regarding this power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

The next part of the 2nd Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

The word State, in that instance, means “individual, autonomous, sovereign State.” In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a free Ohio, a free California, and so on.

“Necessary to the security of a free State.” A militia is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State. Security against whom? A foreign invader? Isn’t that what the standing army was supposed to be for? Why would States need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their “security,” and to ensure that security is for them to remain a “free State?”

Foreign enemies were a concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government. Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty years.

“… can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

The Declaration of Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against their government should it become tyrannical. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. How could it ever be logical that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first place?

Arms – Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.

Collective Right – Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.

Declaration of Independence – The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July 4, 1776.

Individual Right – Rights held by individuals within a particular group.

Organized Militia – A well trained militia that is in good order that operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States; National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.

Original Authority – Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.

Regulated – To make regular; to put in good order.

State Sovereignty – The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

Unorganized Militia – Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Questions for Discussion:

1. In your opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?

2. If the courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear arms?

3. Is a militia necessary in today’s society? Why?

4. Why did the Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?

5. In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and States. How does that open up the opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?

10 USC § 311 – Militia: Composition and Classes, Cornell University
Law School:

McDonald v. City of Chicago, United States Supreme Court:

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution (Philadelphia 1787), The Federalist Papers:…/noah-webster-an-examin…

The Tree of Liberty Quotation, Monticello – TH: Jefferson Encyclopedia:…/The_tree_of_liberty…(Quotati…

Washington, D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court of the United States Blog:

Hey Buffalo Bill…

January 5, 2016

Buffalo Bill Cody is probably turning over in his grave!

Tomorrow (Jan 6) in Cody WY the school board is having what they call a ‘special meeting’ that includes both school board members and state legislators about…guns in schools.

This meeting is so ‘special’ – that they decided the meeting shouldn’t be advertised to the public.

The truth is, they don’t want you to know!

You see, Park county’s anti-gun school superintendent Ray Schulte is working hard to ensure law abiding Citizens like YOU are NEVER allowed to exercise the God-given right to self defense.

And just what is Schulte pushing?

He is in support of legislation strikingly similar to Senator Hank Coe’s substitute bill that effectively derailed the repeal of gun free zones in Wyoming.

And this isn’t the first time superintendent Schulte has been on the wrong side of your right to keep and bear arms. The more that you see him in action, the more you realize he is aligned with Joe Biden, the author of gun free zone legislation.

Here’s the low down…

Schulte in his capacity as superintendent of schools in Torrington Wy —-> testified against repealing gun free zones in a Wyoming Senate committee in 2012.

It was at this moment we discovered that superintendent Schulte doesn’t even trust the citizens who submit to a full background check.

Schulte stated in open committee, “I spoke with our police chief and he told me there over two thousand permit holders right here in out district, can you imagine all of them being in the school at the same time?”

It was shortly after, that the Goshen School board had enough of Schulte…

In June of 2012 the school board voted against Schulte and one board member even stated publicly that, “the superintendent wasn’t doing a good job” and “his salary was too high.”

The Torrington headline actually read, “District Superintendent Ray Schulte does not have the full support of the Goshen County School Board.”

Sadly by the following year, the folks in Cody took him in as their new school superintendent, at an even higher salary of $150,000 a year.

It should be noted that instead of inviting the public to a meeting where the only agenda is about guns, Schulte invited several neighboring district board members – Now you know why it’s called a “special meeting.”

Please contact the following Park county school board members and let them know you are on to their scheme.

Jake Fulkerson
Term Ends: 2016

Julie Snelson
Vice Chairman
Term Ends: 2016

Stefanie Bell
Term Ends: 2016

Kelly Simone
Term Ends: 2018

Ed Seymour
Term Ends: 2016

I have confirmed that the Grizzly Room at the Cody Library is reserved from 6-9pm on Jan 6. I have also confirmed that public comments will not be allowed. If you can be there please do so with a recording device and camera in hand.

In order for WyGO to continue opposing the likes of Superintendent Schulte and Senator Hank Coe, I need your help. Please consider a donation of $100, $50 or just $25 today.

For Freedom,

Anthony Bouchard
Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners

Florida Democrats trying to Convene Special Session to Repeal “Stand Your Ground”

August 15, 2013

Florida Democrats trying to Convene Special Session to Repeal “Stand Your Ground”

Barrack Obama and the liberals on MSNBC just can’t take “no” for an answer.

A jury of six women in Florida found George Zimmerman “not guilty,” and even liberal national pundits seem to believe that the outcome was the result of a flimsy case.

Subsequently, “lynch mobs” all over the country rallied to unsuccessfully get Attorney General Eric Holder to do what the criminal justice system refused to do.

Now, Florida Democrats are scrambling to convene a special session for the purpose of repealing Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, and the Secretary of State is currently polling legislators to gauge support for such a special session.

Republicans should resist this siren call.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has worked quite well:

* According to a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times, minorities (such as blacks and Hispanics) are actually MORE LIKELY to successfully use the Stand Your Ground defense.

* The Florida Sheriffs Association is in unanimous support of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

* And a majority of Americans (53% to 40%) support Stand Your Ground, as evidenced by a recent Quinnipiac poll.

Floridians have been safer because they have been able to defend themselves and their families, without having to consider whether defending their families could put them in prison — or leave them civilly liable — for the rest of their lives.

The attempt to use a “quickie” special session to cram a repeal through, without adequate consideration or debate, is particularly objectionable.

ACTION: Contact your state Representative.  Urge him to defend Stand Your Ground and oppose any special session convened to repeal it.



1. Proceed to

2. Enter your zip code in the box provided under “Find Your Elected Officials” on the lower right.  (Preferably, you should enter your nine-digit zip code to get the best answer.)

3. Scroll down and click on the on the name of the desired representative.

4. Click on your representative’s website, which will be found under your representative’s name (upper left)

5. Find and click on the representative’s email address or webform.

6. Take the pre-written letter below and cut-n-paste this into the email or webform.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

Barrack Obama and the liberals on MSNBC just can’t take “no” for an answer.

A jury of six women in Florida found George Zimmerman “not guilty,” and even liberal national pundits seem to believe that the outcome was the result of a flimsy case.

Subsequently, “lynch mobs” all over the country rallied to unsuccessfully get Attorney General Eric Holder to do what the criminal justice system refused to do.

Now, Florida Democrats are scrambling to convene a special session for the purpose of repealing Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, and the Secretary of State is currently polling legislators to gauge support for such a special session.

You should resist this siren call.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has worked quite well:

* According to a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times, minorities (such as blacks and Hispanics) are actually MORE LIKELY to successfully use the Stand Your Ground defense.

* The Florida Sheriffs Association is in unanimous support of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

* And a majority of Americans (53% to 40%) support Stand Your Ground, as evidenced by a recent Quinnipiac poll.

Floridians have been safer because they have been able to defend themselves and their families, without having to consider whether defending their families could put them in prison — or leave them civilly liable — for the rest of their lives.

The attempt to use a “quickie” special session to cram a repeal through, without adequate consideration or debate, is particularly objectionable.

Please defend stand-your-ground and oppose any special session convened to repeal it.


Gun ban advocates must decide if they’re willing–and able–to kill 50,000,000+

March 23, 2013

This id from Kurt Hoffman’s Examiner. Kurt is indeed one of the best writers on the internet, and AIRBORNE of course!

A new WorldNetDaily/Wenzel poll finds that only 20 percent of American gun owners would surrender their firearms if ordered to by the government (although an additional 16 percent claimed to be “unsure”–probably not the sort who would be determined enough to face the consequences of defying such an order). From WorldNetDaily:

The scientific telephone survey was conducted March 7-12 and has a margin of error of 2.92 percentage points.

“Among gun owners, 64 percent said they would not relinquish their guns, while 20 percent said they would and another 16 percent of gun owners were unsure on the question,” he said.

In some respects, additional details of the poll carry few surprises. Those who identify themselves as “conservative” are far less likely to surrender their guns than those who call themselves “liberal,” Republicans are less likely to submit to disarmament than Democrats, men less likely than women, whites less so than other ethnic groups, and southerners are less likely than inhabitants of other regions.

But if we step back away from the minutiae of the demographic breakdown, we have somewhere between 64 and 80 percent who will not comply with any confiscatory gun bans. And make no mistake, the specter of confiscatory bans is not “paranoid, right-wing delusion,” as can be seen be seen in the obscenely misnamed “SAFE Act,” in New York, an active program of confiscation of registered firearms in California, and proposals for similar abominations at the federal level:

From Senator Feinstein’s early plans for her “assault weapon” ban, (and remember, that’s “just the beginning”), to the Obama administration’s own National Institute of Justice declaring that “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans cannot accomplish anything without confiscation, to Rep. Eliot Engel‘s (D-NY) perennial confiscatory ban of “armor piercing” handguns, the gun prohibitionist lobby very clearly considers confiscation to be a realistic goal, and not just an abstract fantasy for the distant future.

What this poll shows, though, is that aspiring gun banners need to do some math homework. 64 to 80 percent of an estimated 80 million gun owners (a common, if tough to verify, estimate) works out to 51 to 64 million freedom loving, angry–and armed–Americans who intend to stay armed. Taking the math a bit further, that’s about 102 to 128 million hands that are not cold and dead, and will be holding guns until they are.

The WND article quotes Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has sponsored a bill that would ban certain types of weapons, said in Congress last week, “We cannot allow the carnage … to continue.”

She has never seen wholesale “carnage,” but if she really wants a good look, an attempt to disarm the American citizenry would get her a ringside seat for a level of carnage America hasn’t seen since the 1860s–except that there are no ringside seats for aspiring tyrants. She will be in the ring.

Who is going to disarm us? Who is going to kill us, in order to make that possible? Here’s something to think about before you answer. There are not enough jackbooted thugs to make it happen. There are not even enough grave diggers to bury the JBTs who might try. We were ready to rumble as three percent of America’s gun owners. At 20 or more times that, there won’t be enough targets to go around.

Your move, statists. Molon Labe.


About the publishing of addresses of gun owners…

March 8, 2013

What’s good for the goose must obviously be good for the gander.

So here are the addresses and phone number of NY Journal “columnist” (one who propagates journalistic abuse) Dwight R. Worley who published all of the HOME ADDRESSES of Law Abiding Conceal Carry Gun Owners of the entire state of NY as well as the rest of the Marxist swine at The Journal:

Dwight R Worley
23006 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413

But you might want to call him first to let him know you’ll be dropping in: (718) 527-0832

and here are the rest of the red diaper doper babies at
The Journal:

Journal News President:
—Janet Hasson, 3 Gate House Lane Mamaroneck, NY 10534 (914) 694.5204

—Cyndee Royle, 1133 Westchester Ave., Suite N110, White Plains, NY 10604, 914-694-9300
–Nancy Cutler 9 Woodwind Ln, Spring Valley, NY. (845) 354 3485

Parent company of The Journal News Gannett
—–CEO Gracia C Martore 728 Springvale Rd Great Falls, VA 22066 (703) 759 5954

The reporter on the story is:
–Dwight R Worley 23006 139 Ave Springfield Gardens, NY 11413 (718) 527 0832

Plz hit the share button on this. Don’t let it get buried! Save a copy for when they re-set the comments.

SOURCE wishes to remain anonymous.

Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn: Stuck on Stupid

February 24, 2013

Insurance so that you can exercise a right? Read on about the nanny stater big government type Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn that is, quite simply. Stuck on stupid!

Gun owners would have to buy liability insurance to own a gun under a bill introduced recently by a New York City legislator, a proposal one gun owners group is calling an attempt to ban guns.

The bill has gotten little fanfare in light of the passage last month of the state’s Safe Act gun control legislation.

The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn.

“This insurance policy will serve as an incentive for firearm owners to implement safety measures in order to conduct the activity as safely as possible and only when necessary,” the bill reads.

The proposal has been introduced in the state Assembly but was without a Senate sponsor as of mid-February. It would require all gun owners in New York to buy a minimum of $1 million in liability insurance, insurance that one expert said would be difficult if not impossible to get and would likely be very expensive if available.

Gun owners who don’t have insurance would see their firearms confiscated under the proposed law.

“Its another outright attempt to ban firearms,” said Tom King, executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. “Everybody’s talking about this one.”

In the past, gun owners could rely on the state Senate to defeat restrictive gun bills, but that is no longer the case, King said.

Stephen Aldstadt, director of Shooters Committee on Political Education-New York, said the bill was “definitely something to be concerned about.”

He said federal legislators had unsuccessfully attempted to enact a similar law in the past.

He said he doesn’t think the bill will make it into law, however.

“I don’t think it has a legitimate chance,” Aldstadt said.

King, who works in the insurance industry, said finding insurance written specifically for guns would be almost impossible.

Mike Grasso, an executive with Cool Insurance in Queensbury and a gun owner, said homeowner’s insurance policies would generally cover any accidents involving firearms. But any willful or illegal conduct with a gun would generally not be covered by any insurance policy, he said.

“A willful act would not allow an injured person to recover insurance monies, except for a child using the gun when it is determined there was no intent, it was just an accident,” Grasso said. “Currently, if you accidently shoot someone it is covered by your policy because you did not do it intentionally.”

Grasso called the bill “another registration scheme.”

The bill is A3908. It was referred to the Assembly’s Insurance Committee and no vote had been scheduled.



Owning firearms is a First Amendment exercise, too!

February 8, 2013

By Alan Gottlieb

Following the hysteria generated by gun prohibitionists in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a nationwide rush on gun stores began as citizens bought semiautomatic modern sporting rifles, handguns and ammunition, in effect “making a political statement” about proposals to ban such firearms.

Making political statements is what the First Amendment is all about.

The so-called “assault rifle” has become a symbol of freedom and the right of the people to speak out for the entire Bill of Rights. Banning such firearms, which are in common use today, can no longer be viewed exclusively as an infringement on the Second Amendment, but must also be considered an attack on the First Amendment.

Many people now feel that owning a so-called “assault rifle” without fear of government confiscation defines what it means to be an American citizen. Their backlash against knee-jerk extremism is a natural reaction to overreaching government.

What should one expect in response to this heightened rhetoric and legislative hysteria? Citizens in other countries react differently to government intrusion into their lives, but Americans are uniquely independent. Among firearms owners, talk of gun bans and attempts to limit one’s ability to defend himself or herself against multiple attackers by limiting the number of rounds they can have in a pistol or rifle magazine turns gun owners into political activists.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) did not intend her gun ban proposal to cause skyrocketing sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, but that’s what happened. She must live with the consequences of her shameless political exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

President Barack Obama never envisioned the rush to purchase rifle and pistol magazines, but telling American citizens they shouldn’t have something is like sending a signal they need to acquire those things immediately.

Vice President Joe Biden never imagined his efforts would result in a tidal wave of new members and contributions to gun rights organizations, making the firearms community stronger and more united in opposition to any assault on the Second Amendment.

Freedom of association is also protected by the First Amendment.

Perhaps they should take a day off and visit the monuments at Lexington and Concord, and reflect on what prompted those colonists to stand their ground. It was the first time in American history that the government moved to seize arms and ammunition from its citizens, and it went rather badly for the British.

Beneath the surface many Americans are convinced that we may be approaching a point when the true purpose of the Second Amendment is realized. Underscoring this is a new Pew Research Center poll that, for the first time, shows a majority (53 percent) of Americans believe the government is a threat to their rights and freedoms.

Exacerbating the situation is a perceived indifference from the administration toward the rights of firearms owners who have committed no crime, but are being penalized for the acts of a few crazy people.

It is time to lower the rhetoric and allow cooler heads to prevail. The demonization of millions of loyal, law-abiding Americans and the firearms they legally own must cease. If we are to have a rational dialogue about firearms and violent crime, we must recognize that the very people who could be most affected have a First Amendment right to be heard.

Recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, who cautioned us more than 150 years ago that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A half-century before him, Benjamin Franklin taught us that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Their spirits are calling to us now.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Governor Cuomo making preparations to confiscate New York’s guns…

January 4, 2013

It can happen anywhere folks. At least where people allow others to rule them rather than running their own lives as they should. Places where neo-communist’s and socialist’s have taken control and instituted their heavy handed brand of authoritarianism.

Yes, it actually was the Thursday before Christmas when Andrew Cuomo decided that New Yorkers might like to know his thoughts about the right to bear arms in NY State. God-fearing and government-fearing New Yorkers were quite disappointed. The Governor told the citizens of New York that he was seriously considering confiscating their guns. Cuomo was not kidding. He intends to take away some types of guns at a future date.

So close to Christmas, the Governor was playing the role of a reverse Santa Claus (OK, a Grinch to be exact) for those who still believe in the Second Amendment. New York already has the fourth toughest gun control laws in the nation. Despite such tight gun control, who among US feels safe travelling to New York? Are any of our fears based on the plain folk being armed—having guns in their homes? Or is it because we think criminals in NY will be eternally armed?

On his web site, shortly after Cuomo’s Albany speech, a blogger known as Monty on Guns offered a sobering thought about the left’s new strategy to divide gun owners by weapon types. Feinstein will be doing the same thing soon on a national level. Monty sees their end objective to eventually assure there are no types of guns permitted in America. There are a lot of weapon types that concerned citizens, fearing our government more than burglars, would like to possess to protect against a tyrannical intrusion of elected officials in our lives.

The major purpose of the 2nd Amendment of course is a strong defense against government tyranny. It is not to protect the right to go target shooting. The founders feared a government gone-bad more than anything else. When the confiscation begins, they will start with the weapons that only somebody really trying to protect themselves from a bad government would want to have—semi automatic one shot at a time weapons, and those rapid-fire weapons that have been banned for manufacture, other than to the government since 1987.

If the government goes bad, and they are targeting Y-O-U, would you look for a pug pistol or a Molotov Cocktail? Would you look for both if you had either in your arsenal? You do not have to register Molotov Cocktails!

The left and the corrupt progressive media likes to call all of these threatsassault weapons,” hoping to sway those neutral on the Second Amendment to their side—the side that wants to disarm America to make us all helpless to any perpetration. Here is his quote—directly from Monty with no changes—even syntax:

“The tactic is to divide gun owners that have guns primarily for hunting from those that enjoy AR’s and other military styled guns for sport, self defence and yes, even hunting. It seeks to divide gun owners based on what types of guns they prefer and for what uses they enjoy their guns. It divides the handgun shooters from shotgun enthusiasts; 3 gun shooters from hunters; semi-auto owners against bolt action owners. If they can get gun owners to side with them against a certain type of firearm, their tactic is advanced and their overall plan for all gun owners will move forward….with help of gun owners. Make no mistake about what the endstate is for these people. There is no difference to them between an AK 47 and your Grandfather’s 60 year old Browning Auto 5 shotgun.Once they get rid of one type of gun, they ALWAYS move on to the next. Ask our friends in the U.K and Australia about that.”

Adding his progressive voice to the mounting list of liberal progressives across America that have little use for the Constitution, its amendments, or any of the writings of the founders, Governor Cuomo was compelled to get on the anti-gun-owners list before it again becomes passé to talk about gun control.

With his Thursday December 19th speech, the Governor earned the right to sip some tea with Hollywood’s finest, including little Miss Lindsay Lohan! But, we know she is not pure on the issue as she has at least once handled a gun—pshaw! As Kojak would say, if convinced to be in charge: “turn it in baby!” The fear most Americans have about turning anything in is to whom, but more importantly, why?

The Cuomo package may be proposed as early as January when the Governor delivers his state of the state address. The big news is that Cuomo is one of the first political opportunists to suggest that confiscation of the people’s guns is an OK option.

What a great boon for the criminals in NY to know they will no longer risk bodily harm when they choose to make the property of any New Yorker theirs during their next burglary. Without the threat of getting a piece of lead in the butt, the burglary business may no longer qualify for hazardous duty pay in NY. Perhaps they can finally get regular rates on their Obamacare policies.

New York continues to be a very liberal state. It was always in Obama’s camp and the President has never embraced the notion of guns for the people. And he will not do so now while Cuomo collects them. So, the fine people of NY will get what they asked for when the Governor acts on his confiscation notion. Perhaps you can hire guards armed with sticks or entrenching tools as weapons as did the military with its new basic training recruits for years in the 1960’s and 1970’s. No new recruits had guns back then even when guarding the training compound.

Perhaps to encourage Governor Cuomo to take the strongest action possible, New Yorkers ought to self impose a 5% surcharge on their State Income Tax payment this year to help congratulate the Governor on this fine idea!

In fact, even before the formal proclamation in his state of the state speech, there is no reason to wait to begin turning in weapons. There is nothing in the law that says all New York gun owners must keep their unnecessary property indefinitely. Therefore, to really show the Governor that he is right on the mark, all NY gun owners, to show support for the confiscation idea, should without hesitation donate their huge investments in firearm technology to the soon to-be-built NY State smeltery.

Perhaps rather than market value, fair compensation would be about 50% of the weight of the materials rendered from the arsenal. The government’s cost of confiscation can be made up by the other 50%. That would be a painless tax for all residents who find no use for their firearms. Who likes gun-owners anyway? Perhaps the government can use confiscated and pre-smelted weapons to save dollars on the purchase of military and police weapons.

In fact, perhaps the whole fiscal cliff notion would have been solved merely by Americans turning in their guns to our benevolent, friendly government for smelting or for redistribution of the pre-smelted materials. Perhaps AG Eric Holder can still take a few tractor-trailer loads of some pre-smelted items to Mexico to get an even better price to bolster tax revenues for even more redistribution.

Gun owners who come in immediately on the proposed program should be paid by the pound at a 100% level for the special metals, wood, and hard plastics that can be extracted / rendered. When the legislation is enacted, the rate would probably go down to 50%. He who hesitates is lost.

Once all guns are in government hands, nobody would ever have to worry again about any problems such as the recent sad situation in Connecticut ever again. The guns will be gone and the former NY gun owners will have received a small stipend for turning them in. Cuomo is clearly a genius. Why didn’t Hitler or Stalin or Mao think of that first before they confiscated the guns of their opponents?

I hope Governor Cuomo plans to give all of the good-hearted NY criminals out there the opportunity to turn their guns ahead of time so there is never a period in which the law-abiding citizens without guns will have to worry about criminals packing weapons.

Perhaps a month would be necessary to collect all weapons from criminals. Because of Cuomo’s great speech, criminals will more than likely line up in droves in front of the smeltery to do their part. Officials just have to watch that the criminals do not trick the system by turning in cap gun imitations of assault weapons to gain the monetary credit.

Projections from some citizen gun advocates are that at least two or three criminals, blessed with a Christmas born-again moment, will turn-in their guns. As long as the rest of the criminals promise the NY Governor that they will not use their guns ever again, accountants and odds-makers have information to conclude that everybody will be safe—since law-abiding citizens would be forced to turn in their weapons and get their nasty firearms off the streets.

After such a good-faith effort on the part of the criminals, all law abiding citizens, including security guards that had been packing—those that might be on duty in front of the casinos or in front of Hollywood homes, banks, schools, and of course the Secret Service, and the governor’s personal body guards, would be safe. What a good deal!

After all, there would be no more guns about to worry! Even the President’s body guards would have no problem turning in their “assault” weapons to the approved government smelters. When the Cuomo plan becomes so popular that it goes national, the rest of the country will have a model for how to act. Anybody really wanting to kill anybody else would still be permitted to get that job done but, they would not be permitted to use guns.

They would be forced to use kitchen knives. Recently, because of their gun-control laws, by the way, kitchen knives have become the murder weapon of choice in the UK.

The scent of weapons burning can give all Americans that feeling of security and freedom that we in the US have clearly been lacking recently. Liberal progressives believe sincerely that the right to bear arms as a constitutional amendment probably was not intended for regular people anyway.
Finally, with no more guns, the country can be safe for the long haul, as long as the government never decides to go bad and use its guns against the people. But, when has a government ever gone bad? Perhaps now is just the right time to simply trust the government?

Liberal progressives have been suggesting that we all must act immediately to stop violence in America, regardless of whether just a little freedom and liberty are lost along the way. They feel it will be for the greater good.

Ben Franklin never got to hear the advice of the liberal progressives in his day. You may remember Franklin, an American founding father and a deep patriot. One of his famous admonitions to Americans Citizens goes like this: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Perhaps Franklin would change his mind today if he had the privilege of learning the facts from NY Governor Cuomo or NY Senator Schumer. Perhaps Franklin had been drinking the day he was quoted.

Madison too was not as enlightened as the NY pair of lawmakers when he said: [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. —James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

As they try to dismember our Constitution one piece at a time, many progressive liberals in authority think the founders were just goofs who were drunk with power. The criminals surely would agree. The founders, as many who study history know, were more worried about the government being armed and going bad than protection from the Indians or some fellow colonists who had a bad childhood. The 2nd Amendment was to protect the Citizens from the government.

To get the Cuomo resolution passed into law, the Cuomo government would more than likely promise to behave well for all time henceforth. Since we all know the word of the government is rock solid, New Yorkers would be safe and well served at that point in time when they smell the aroma of the smoke of their own guns burning in the NY Smeltery. We Americans all trust that government will always do the right thing as it always has—in all countries—from the beginning of time.

Rather than harden into untrusting citizens, perhaps it is time for the people to bet that government officials will be righteous and the criminals will shortly thereafter become just as righteous? Rather than trust a personal firearm, the people can be encouraged to trust its government—regardless of what those silly founders had to say about that.

And, trusting the Cuomo initiative, when it passes in NY, will help it spread quickly to other states. All citizens of the US then will know it is time for all of US in the US to peacefully lay down our arms and prove for the history books once and for all, that Governor Cuomo had a great idea to reduce arms in America. As sure as there was never a Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao, we can then all be pleased to live happily ever after.

In such a Utopian world, no armed guards would be needed for any politician, including Governor Cuomo. Additionally, the eleven armed guards now employed at the Sidwell, where Sasha and Malia Obama attend school could be dismissed. After the fervor with which the Governor made his case on the Thursday before Christmas, surely, he would not be looking for an exception to his own rule.

Isn’t it just amazing how simple solutions can be, when they are purely brilliant. New Yorkers should be very proud of their Governor. Finally a good and righteous man appears on the scene with a simply brilliant notion! I can’t wait to see the first smoke fume.

SOURCE and Full Story

McCain may be working to stab us in the back, and what else is new..?

January 4, 2013
Whether the Semi-Auto Ban Passes May
Depend on What Happens to the Senate Rules

McCain may be working to stab us in the back

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is still trying to rig the Senate rules so that President Barack Obama can get his anti-gun and anti-Constitution agenda passed.

But first, here’s some good news.

GOA activists like yourself are having an impact!

Prior to the New Year, the reports coming out of Washington, DC indicated that Senator Harry Reid was going to nuke the filibuster on the first day of the new Congress (which would have been yesterday).

But Politico, which is one of the official papers of Capitol Hill, reported yesterday that Reid still doesn’t have the votes — despite having a Democrat majority.

The Politico headline blared:  “Reid expected to Postpone Filibuster Rule Change:  May buy time for a bipartisan bill.”

This is somewhat good news, as it means that Reid still can’t cram a rules change down our throats, limiting the ability that pro-gun Senators have to filibuster (or kill) anti-gun legislation.

But here’s the bad news:  Reid is working on a “compromise” where certain RINO’s like John McCain will help Reid do his bidding.

What’s at stake?

Well, The Blaze reported yesterday that Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” to ailing Boston Mayor Tom Menino that sweeping gun control legislation would be passed by the end of January.

How sweeping?

A quick look at Feinstein’s semi-auto ban legislation suggests that up to 75% of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with as much as 50% of all long guns.

Depending on its configuration, the AR-15 you already have would probably be treated like a machine gun.  You would have to be fingerprinted, background checked by the FBI, and undergo a six-month license application process to keep it.  And when you die, the government will seize it.

If you don’t get an NFA license, you can expect the SWAT teams to descend on your house.

But, you ask, how could such rabidly anti-gun legislation ever get past Congress?  Well, legislators could simply follow the path they took on the fiscal cliff, where they bludgeoned a minority of Senators into accepting several, coerced short-cuts in regard to the Senate rules.

However, these forced short-cuts would now become mandated and set in stone if Harry Reid & Co. get their way.

Under one new “compromise” being floated on Capitol Hill, the Senate would change its rules so that it could pass a gun ban with only 50 votes (plus the vote of Vice President Joe Biden).  Or legislators could write the gun ban in a House-Senate conference committee on a “must-pass” bill, employing a tactic that is frequently used to pass controversial legislation.  Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Nevada’s Harry Reid, and Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey — who will not have to run for reelection for a while — will cast “courageous” votes for this gun ban.

And it will hit the House with enormous momentum — momentum which House Speaker John Boehner (who has already called for a dialogue on gun control) may not have the courage to resist.

But the first step will be to demolish the Senate rules so that gun control only requires 50 votes — or so that gun control can be inserted in a House-Senate conference report on a must-pass bill.  And this is where John McCain comes in.

GOA working with Senator Rand Paul to preserve the filibuster

McCain was irritated at Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who worked with Gun Owners of America on a variety of pro-gun issues that slowed down his defense funding bill.   So McCain would not lose any sleep if his rules “compromise” diminished our ability to kill anti-gun legislation in the future.

McCain is now working with Leftist anti-gun Senator Carl Levin on a series of rules changes to make gun control a lot easier to pass.

The first McCain-Levin rules change would make it impossible to fight — what’s known in Washington as — the “motion to proceed.”  Remember ObamaCare?  Our last real shot to kill ObamaCare was by filibustering the “motion to proceed” to that anti-gun legislation.  Once the motion was adopted, the bill became amendable and Harry Reid could play “let’s-make-a-deal.”  So this change would eliminate our last real opportunity to set up a roadblock and keep anti-gun legislation from even being considered.

The second McCain-Levin rules change would make it easier to add gun control to a bill in conference.  Currently, senators can block a House-Senate conference from considering an anti-gun bill.  But if the McCain proposals are adopted, a “must-pass” bill could be sent to conference … amended in conference with a draconian gun ban … and then sent back to the House and the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

McCain will try to tell you that that inserting a gun ban into a bill that is sitting in a House-Senate conference would be outside the “scope of conference.”  But that would be a lie, because as any Senator knows, “scope of conference” rules are never followed.  For example, the Gramm-Rudman spending guidelines were written in conference from the ground up.

The third McCain-Levin rules change would block any amendments except for those offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or Floor Manager John McCain.  All other senators would be left out in the cold.

This McCain-Levin package must be stopped.

We are currently working with Senator Rand Paul, who is planning to offer a GOA-originated amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate before any anti-gun measure can be passed.

We know.  We know.  If it were up to us, gun control would not be able to be passed with 100 votes.  But we need to propose something which will pass the Senate.

So we need your help in opposing the McCain package and supporting the Paul amendment.

ACTION:  Click here to contact your Senators.  Demand that they (1) oppose the McCain-Levin package to make gun control easier to pass, and (2) support the Rand Paul amendment to require a two-thirds vote to enact gun control.


So much for swearing an oath…Obama’s collaborators in Wyoming

December 31, 2012

Earlier this year with your help we defeated state legislation that would have expanded gun free zones, or better called — victim disarmament zones — in all County buildings around the state.

But, as we know all too well, the gun-grabbers never sleep!

Like a broken record, the anti-gun crowd and their pals in the media blame law-abiding gun owners like you and me and try to use tragedies as an excuse to push for even more gun control.

And here in Wyoming, the bad actors are just as emboldened by the mainstream media’s non-stop badgering to ban guns.

The Wyoming Judge that pushed for a gun ban in all County buildings is furious with the legislature for killing his bill — so he decided to do what power hungry tyrants do best.

Two weeks ago Judge Jeffery A. Donnell violated his oath to the Wyoming Constitution when he issued a — gun free zone order — in the Albany County building, claiming he can do so by his OWN authority.

His plan to override the current law from the bench is devious to say the least. It’s very likely that Judge Donnell hopes in-time his unlawful order will be decided by collaborators in the Wyoming Supreme Court.

But this is how the gun control crowd has done it all across the country, by enacting a patchwork of “local” gun laws.

Their scheme is simple — leave our new Constitutional Carry Law on the books but render it virtually MEANINGLESS by allowing local governments to pass their own gun “regulations.”

And here’s where the bad news gets worse.

This power-grab has been orchestrated by none other than the Wyoming Court Security Commission, whose appointed members include the above mentioned Judge Donnell, along with several handpicked anti-gun puppets including the Director of WY Homeland Security, along with several other anti-gun bureaucrats.

We have one strong supporter on the committee. Thanks to the out-going Speaker of the House, Ed Buchanan, we have a voice on the courts panel.

Last month Speaker Buchanan appointed pro-gun champion Representative Allen Jaggi to the commission. But with only one soldier against so many foes — there may not be enough horsepower to stem the tides.

Let’s face it, this is how the progressive crowd works, with the push from the Obama administration and his anti-gun cronies now in full swing — the like minded here in Wyoming have joined forces to mount a battle of epic proportions.

This is the reason Wyoming Gun Owners exists. Join us today.

Judge Donnell’s orders, don’t be fooled by the terms “courthouse” — he’s talking about the entire “County business building”.



%d bloggers like this: