Posts Tagged ‘Hoplophobia’

Disgusting Tactics used for social mind control…

December 10, 2012

I certainly cannot speak for everyone about this. Most simply would go into a rant exploding with righteous indignation over how a national sports format was used for a personal agenda while spreading mental illness like it was smallpox. Hoplophobia is a mental illness, and it should be recognized as such. While most illnesses of this nature are not contagious this one is. NBC should be ashamed of itself for allowing itself to be used as a threat to public health.

That issue aside it is pretty common knowledge that sports personalities do become targets for exploitation. They should, and do, have the right to properly and effectively defend themselves from harm. Just like every other person does. That was a direct response to the many that posted on Yahoo that they should be deprived of that right because Football is supposedly such a violent sport and the people that play the game are also inherently violent and simply cannot be trusted with deadly weapons. That type of thought process belies the fact that hundreds of weapons owned by NFL players didn’t kill anyone on any given day.

The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting ducks people. It is there so that people can defend themselves against criminals. Both inside and outside the government.

Gun Control; The hidden agenda of the epic failure obama regime

July 27, 2012

Fast and Furious was a pretty blatant attempt by the obama regime to stoke the fires for advancing the cause of hoplophobia in these not so United States. Any time any restrictions are placed upon The Bill of Rights, on any of those rights, it weakens all the others. That said, it is the Second Amendment that protects all of those other rights from an overpowering and abusive government.

Since the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado happened there has been yet again a resurrection of cries and lamentations pleading for more restrictions on we the peoples ability to properly and effectively defend ourselves, our families, friends, and nation. These misguided pleas are little more than emotional gambits that would truly lessen freedom and liberty while in fact exposing all of us to even more danger without the ability to defend ourselves.

Again, we hear about automatic weapons that were not used and are nearly impossible to acquire legally here in the United States. We hear that so called Assault Rifles have no legitimate uses outside the realm of the military or law enforcement. Some people are so misinformed that even responding to such arguments exposes one to the dangers of lowering oneself to their level of ignorance. Or about the evils of high capacity magazines (called clips by the ignoramuses) by those that have never apparently heard of “swam attacks.”

All the old false arguments about gun ownership are always, once again, raised as well. Hopefully the American people have not been so brainwashed as to believe things like a gun in the home will most likely be used against you. Or that a gun will not help fend off rapes or other assaults.

Then there are all the utterly ridiculous arguments about the militia clause of the Second Amendment.

This, from Texas Fred’s Blog is an excellent comment;

obama’s quote…

“I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.”

I could NOT agree more with him. I also believe that every American is a member of the militia and a soldier for America when the time comes and when the situation demands it of them. Because for me, the 2nd Amendment means that if America is attacked by its enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC, that my right to bear arms entitles me to have the ability to defend her. I in essence become a soldier with the duty to protect my country and the 2nd Amendment assures me the proper tools to do my duty.

And as for the statement that the AK 47 is best suited for the battlefield is also a true. A battlefield is not a specific area or terrain…it is the place where the enemy is met and confronted. A battlefield is wherever the fighting takes place. So, my AK47 is suited for wherever in America I choose to be.

To be honest, I don’t believe ANY regulation on firearms should be allowed. I believe our Founding Fathers wanted us to be on an even keel at all times with all of our potential enemies. Back then, the enemy had muskets and so did we. As progress of the firearm came about, so should our right to have the best arms we can.

If our potential enemies had high capacity magazines or full auto weapons, so should We The People have this same ability. We can not be an effective and well regulated militia if we have inferior weapons to those of our enemies. I am sure that our Founding Fathers did not expect future generations to fight a tyrannical govt or any enemy that could outshoot us or mow us down with little or no effort. That is why they used the word “ARMS”, to include ALL weapons. I do believe that weapons of mass destruction should certainly be regulated. However, I can not help but think that the regulation of our everyday firearms, such as caliber size, magazine capacity, rapid fire, size of weapon, barrel length, silencers and so on, is in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment as our Founding Fathers intended. All of this nonsense was created by liberals who inch by inch, convinced the American people these moves were necessary to protect us. In reality, ever regulation has made us less and less able to resist those that would seek to control us and take our rights away from us.

As I am sure everyone here knows fully well, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or even about personal protection against home invaders or muggers. Yes, those are legitimate purposes to be recognized, but our 2nd Amendment is about Americans being allowed to maintain the ability to retain all other rights gratned to us by GOD. About our ability to fight, on an even footing, all enemies that want to take away our freedoms and force us into submission.

During the Revolution, We The People owned muskets as did our enemy, the British. Could you imagine us winning the Revolution if we were regulated into having less than the same arms as the British? It would have been very difficult if not impossible to win this war that was the birth of America. If not for the right to keep and bear arms, we would all still be be drinking tea and shouting long live the queen. Well, every regulation that has been put in place regarding firearms have slowly eroded our ability to oppose a tyrannical goverment. If the time ever came, (And I seriously hope it NEVER does), We The People will be at a huge disadvantage. The arms our govt allows us to have now are nowhere equally matched against those we would have to fight against if a tyrant commanding our military wanted to disarm us.

Of some concern is the fact that would our soldiers and law enforcment officers ever raise their arms and use them on everyday Americans? Would they really disarm We The People after having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution? I hope not.

However, Hitler convinced countless German soldiers to do exactly that. These soldiers swore allegiance to Hitler and killed their own countrymen. They killed them by the millions under the orders of their leader. How did so many become convinced to do this? Willingly? Did none of them have a conscience? They had weapons so why did none of them turn them on Hitler and his henchmen directly?

So, having history as my lesson, I worry that it could happen again. I bet that proud German citizens never thought that fellow Germans in uniform would kill them…but it happened. I have even read that German jews that proudly served in uniform for Germany in WWI were killed as well. Nothing protected you if Hitler and his troops wanted you dead. This is one reason I find it particularly odd when I hear jewish Americans shout for gun control. Do they not realize what they are saying?

Could history like this really repeat itself? Have we learned from it? I would like to, but we are human and just as humans have done for thousands of generations, we always seem to make the same mistakes over and over. Could it happen again?

We are living in interesting times. I know that during every election it is said that this is the most important one. However, I think it is a fact this time.

I have read much about all of our presidents throughout American history and even though I have not agreed with the ideaology of some of them, I do believe that every one of our presidents in the past loved America. That they were doing what they believed was best for Americans, at least to some degree. Of course, corruption in our government has always existed, but these were almost always for personal gain and cronism. This is the first time that I feel we have a president in office, along with other HIGH ranking politicians that truly do HATE America and want to destroy it. That they really have never been proud of their country their entire adult lives. That it is more than just about stealing our treasury for their own person gain or taking action for more power and control. For the first time, I am almost positive that those in charge want more than wealth and power, they want to DESTROY America.

Just like those evil individuals of history who hated their fellow countrymen so much that they threw open the gates to their country’s enemies that have led to complete destruction, obama wants to do the same. Just remember his quote to the russian ambassador not that long ago. Look at the policies and laws he is enacting that make us more and more vulnerable. Not only is he working to disarm the people, he is working diligently to dismantle our military and destroy our nukes. What is he doing, and why is he allowed to do this?

I think obma is a lackey of someone with even more power and influence and that obama is a pawn that will be discarded after his purpose has been fulfilled. I used to not believe in conspiracy theories and thought that only wackos would think like this. No more.

I hope I am merely being paranoid. I hope that we have a legitimate election that sees obama out the door. An election that keeps and takes our senate and house. And that Romney does the things he has promised. Until November elections are passed and even more so, that Romney is sworn in, I will remain slightly uneasy. They say that good always triumphs over evil…I hope they are right.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

SOURCE

If it saves only one life? No, it’s not worth it, period. How many lives have been lost in the name of freedom and liberty over the years?

Wake up America! Get rid of the power mad big government authoritarians of all political stripes! If you don’t? Then be prepared for a blood bath. Either in a full blown revolution, or by the very government that you pathetically expect to protect you!

 

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty WILL restrict your gun rights

July 10, 2012

As GOA reported before the holiday break, the United Nations has begun discussions over finalizing language in the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) — talks that are expected to last all month.

Senator Moran has prepared a letter, which GOA has in its possession, demanding that the Obama Administration oppose any treaty that would sacrifice Americans’ gun rights — even if it means “breaking consensus” at the July conference.

“We are concerned that the Arms Trade Treaty poses dangers to rights protected under the Second Amendment,” Senator Moran says in his letter.

You have to ratify the ATT to see what’s in it

Despite the risks to our liberties, there is much double-speak taking place at the UN.  The talks in New York are reminiscent of the process that Americans saw with the passage of ObamaCare. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s famous quip: “You have to pass the [health care] bill so you can see what is in it”?

In similar fashion, the gun control details in the ATT will “not be publicly available” until the treaty has been agreed to by all the member nations.

It makes you wonder if Pelosi is being paid as a consultant at these meetings.

Make no mistake about it; UN officials are using secrecy to their advantage, claiming the treaty will not infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.  They claim the treaty only deals with international transfers of firearms.

But Moran counters that the treaty will expand federal gun controls and lead to the registration of firearms.

The Arms Trade Treaty WILL restrict your gun rights

The Moran letter quotes a draft of the treaty, noting that it requires nations to “monitor and control” arms in transit and to prohibit the unauthorized “transfer of arms from any location” — a requirement, he says, that implies a huge “expansion of federal firearms controls that would be unacceptable on Second Amendment grounds.”

And the draft version of the treaty calls for the creation of a “U.N.-based firearms registry for all firearms that are either imported into or transit across national territory.”  Can you imagine any greater infringement of your privacy … giving UN bureaucrats the “right” to collect information on you as a gun owner?

Some 130 Representatives sent their own letter to the President on Monday reminding him that the Second Amendment guarantees the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms” and declaring that the U.S. has no business supporting a treaty that infringes on the Bill of Rights.

The House letter is a good first step, but getting a similar one sent from the Senate is even more important.  After all, IT’S THE SENATE — and not the House — which must ratify the ATT.

Since the treaty will be finalized later this month, it is very important for Senator Moran to get at least 34 Senators on his letter — meaning he would have enough votes to prevent the treaty’s ratification.

ACTIONPlease click here to send a message urging your Senators to sign on to the Moran letter right away.  Senator Moran’s office says that Senators have been very slow to respond to his request for more signatories.  But he needs these signatures right away!

ObamaCare Decision Means Feds Will Continue to Cull Gun Owner Information

June 28, 2012

Led by feckless chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the ObamaCare law by a 5-to-4 decision, with Roberts voting with liberals Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.

While the decision means many harmful things for the American public, the Second Amendment community remains greatly affected,

GOA’s John Velleco was at the U.S. Supreme Court today to speak with media about how the ObamaCare decision negatively impacts gun owners.

as the law requires Americans’ medical information to be culled and entered into a national database.

Centralizing these medical records will allow the FBI to troll a list of Americans for ailments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to deny them their gun rights, in the same way that the Veterans Administration has already denied more than 150,000 veterans their right to bear arms.

Ironically, the Boston Globe last week reported how snarky liberals have been shocked to learn that hundreds of pages of their most intimate psychiatric notes have been posted into the database — available for reading by hundreds (perhaps thousands) of strangers who work for their provider.

Now, their most embarrassing recollections are semi-public knowledge, and this was done knowingly and unapologetically by the people to whom they were spilling their confidences.  Their privacy is gone, and there is nothing they can do about it.

This is the danger that gun owners face — the sharing of medical information (like PTSD) that can be used in the future to deny them their right to purchase a firearm.

As for the ObamaCare decision itself, the Supreme Court ruled today that the Individual Mandate (requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance) is constitutional under Congress’ taxing power.

Thus, the government can force us to buy broccoli — or anything else — by simply imposing an enormous “tax penalty” for failing to do what the government orders us to do.  There is NOTHING the government can’t now do as part of its taxing power.

Incidentally, ObamaCare was passed amid vigorous denunciations that Congress was imposing an enormous tax on the American people — and on the middle and lower classes.  Thus, by allowing the Obama administration to now argue that it “fooled us,” the Court becomes a co-conspirator in Obama’s fraud.

The culprits?  Well, certainly the tepid, political-wind-monitoring Roberts, who has sold himself to receive favorable media coverage by the liberal left and to get invited to the swanky parties in our nation’s capital.  Ironically, the Senate almost did away with the Senate filibuster in order to secure Robert’s confirmation to the Court.

If there is a silver lining to this decision, it is that the Court ruled that the Individual Mandate CANNOT be justified under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  This is good news for gun owners, as this text has been illegitimately expanded over the years to justify all kinds of unconstitutional laws — including gun control.

Americans now know what we need to do:  We need to repeal the Individual Mandate through a legislative rider (or amendment) to the must-pass Continuing Resolution, which Congress will take up around September 30.  And perhaps, the ultimate way to get rid of ObamaCare is to get rid of Obama.

In the process, we will need to put a constitutional majority in control of the Senate and consolidate and even expand the anti-ObamaCare majority in the House.

But the first line of defense is to force a vote on must-pass legislation to repeal or “defund” the mandate.  You can expect Gun Owners of America to be at the epicenter of this battle.  So please stay tuned for updates!

SOURCE

Lunatic Reds… In Black Gowns, again…

April 19, 2012
Reid to Push Gun-Grabbing Judge for Nevada!
Sen. Dean Heller blocks anti-gun nomination
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is attempting to push yet another radical anti-gunner through the U.S. Senate.  This time it’s Elissa Cadish, who flatly denies that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right.
Asked in 2008 by a group called Citizens for Responsible Government whether she believed an individual citizen had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, Cadish answered:
“I do not believe there is this constitutional right.  Thus, I believe that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on gun ownership in the interest of public safety.  Of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge.” [sic]
Now, she claims that she was only stating the law as it existed before the Supreme Court’s Heller v. D.C. decision.
But let’s count the “red flags” raised by Cadish:
First, the “militia” theory was not “the law” prior to Heller, either in terms of the Framers’ intentions or in terms of the Supreme Court’s admittedly muddled jurisprudence.
Second, the concept that “restrictions … on gun ownership [further] public safety” is a thinly veiled suggestion that, once on the bench for life, Cadish will do everything possible to thwart gun owners’ rights.
Third, we’ve heard the “enforce the law” lingo from other Obama nominees, including Sonia Sotomayor, who, as soon as she had secured confirmation, went on an anti-Second Amendment rampage.
Thankfully, Nevada’s other Senator, Dean Heller, is using his prerogative as one of the nominee’s home state Senators to keep this confirmation from moving forward.
It’s called the “blue slip” procedure, an informal custom in which the Senate refuses to move on a nominee that does not have the support of his or her own Senators.
But in response to Sen. Heller’s standing firm, every gun-hating liberal in Nevada — including Harry Reid — have crawled out of the woodwork to blast his efforts to protect the right to keep and bear arms.
Sen. Heller is not backing down from this fight, in the face of enormous political pressure from the White House and the powerful Majority Leader.  We need to encourage him to continue to hold firm, and to rally other Senators in opposition to this nominee.
ACTION #1:  Send Senator Heller an email at info@deanhealler.org.  Thank him for opposing the confirmation of Elissa Cadish on Second Amendment grounds, and for standing up to Harry Reid and the Obama machine.
ACTION #2: Contact your own Senators and urge them to join Sen. Heller in opposing Elissa Cadish.

Turncoats add more fuel to the fire: Republicans Jon Kyl and John McCain (AZ), Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (ME), Jeff Sessions (AL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Scott Brown (MA), and Lindsey Graham (SC)

February 24, 2012

Last week, we alerted you to a radical anti-gun nominee President Obama named to the federal bench, Jesse Furman.

To no one’s surprise, Furman is cut from the same judicial cloth as other Obama nominees such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

For instance, in an article published a number of years ago—but from which Furman has not distanced himself—he writes that: “Probably the best explanation for the amount of violent crime in the United States is its fascination with guns.”

GOA members flooded the Senate with emails, and many Senators voted against Furman.  But Majority Leader Harry Reid kept every single Democrat in lock-step with the Obama agenda, and Furman was confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the bench on a vote of 62-34.

Republicans Jon Kyl and John McCain (AZ), Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (ME), Jeff Sessions (AL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Scott Brown (MA), and Lindsey Graham (SC) joined all Democrats in voting for Furman.

This vote serves to highlight the difficulty in protecting the courts from anti-Second Amendment nominees who come before the Congress.  Obama will continue to nominate far left gun grabbers, and Harry Reid will be his go-to guy for confirmation votes.

And if Obama wins a second term, his agenda will become only more brazen.  That’s why a top goal of GOA in 2012 is to help elect as many truly pro-gun friends as we can to the U.S. Senate.

It is crucial that Harry Reid does not retain the gavel next year.  But it is not enough to just elect members of the opposing party.  We need to elect strong candidates who understand the Constitution and who will not bow to pressure from the White House—whoever the occupant may be—or from the leadership of either party in the Congress.

Thank you for standing with GOA as we fight these battles on a daily basis.\

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

 

PS  To support our ongoing lobbying efforts with a financial contribution, please click here.

We have simply got to remove these anti liberty and freedom big government authoritarian sycophants from positions of power. Look at that list, and remember when it comes time to vote.

SOURCE

Rahm Emanuel’s childish strategy of striking back at the Second Amendment

February 18, 2012
BELLEVUE, WAChicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposal to slap law-abiding Illinois gun owners with a handgun registration mandate that includes a $65 per-gun fee is “nothing more than a maneuver to discourage gun ownership in the face of court rulings that have gone against Chicago’s stubborn gun ban mentality,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Under Emanuel’s proposal, any Illinois resident purchasing a handgun would be hit with the $65 registration requirement, which is over and above current statutory requirements that include possession of a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card.

“This is Rahm Emanuel’s childish strategy of striking back at the Second Amendment,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “Chicago lost before the Supreme Court in the landmark McDonald case, and its horribly written handgun ordinance has also been rejected by a federal appeals court.

“Because he is on the losing end of the gun rights battle,” Gottlieb continued, “Mayor Emanuel now wants to take out his frustration on every law-abiding gun owner in Illinois. This is the kind of reaction one expects from a five-year-old throwing a temper tantrum, but it should be beneath the dignity of an adult who is supposed to be the leader of one of the nation’s largest cities.”

Emanuel claims that his measure is aimed at helping police, parents and community groups. But State Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, called the proposal a “slap in the face of every law-abiding gun owner.” Gottlieb concurs with that assessment.

“Rahm Emanuel is a both a product, and a philosophical poster child, of two anti-gun administrations,” he said. “He served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, always as point man on gun control initiatives. He does not seem to grasp the reality that American citizens, including those living in Illinois, have a constitutionally-protected civil right to keep and bear arms for their personal protection.

“Mayor Emanuel’s crass effort to infringe on that right through legislative demagoguery is insulting and immature,” Gottlieb said. “This is the kind of behavior that continues to land Chicago in court, and pretty soon, taxpayers will grow tired of entertaining his anti-gun agenda with their dollars.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

“Bang bang you’re dead. The NRA supplied the lead.”

February 18, 2012

Yet another hand picked anti Constitution, anti liberty and freedom type for a Federal Judgeship..? Read on…

There is probably no federal district court in the country which is more important than the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in downtown Manhattan.
So when a nominee with a real anti-gun history is nominated for that court, gun owners need to sit up and take notice.
In particular, on Friday morning, February 17, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will force a vote on the nomination of Jesse M. Furman to a lifetime appointment on the Southern District court.
Furman has all of the usual liberal views that frequently go hand-in-hand with advocacy of gun control.
But what caught our attention was an article he wrote, admittedly when he was younger, entitled “Bang bang you’re dead. The NRA supplied the lead.”
Really?
Let us entertain you with some of Furman’s views, stated in that article:
“Probably the best explanation for the amount of violent crime in the United States is its fascination with guns.”
“A second pressing issue is related to semiautomatic weapons – military assault guns [sic] that are easily converted to automatic fully automatic weapons [sic].”
“There is no reason that gun owners should not be required to register their guns.”
Really!
We find it hard to believe that, once on the bench for a lifetime appointment, Furman would not attempt to achieve gun bans and gun registration by judicial fiat.
Well, says Furman, he was young and stupid when he wrote that article. And we certainly agree with that.
But there is not a scintilla of evidence that Furman’s views have changed over the years.
We have dealt with judicial nominees before (like Sonia Sotomayor) who argue that their writings are not reflective of their views. And, once confirmed, they always return to their previously-held positions.
ACTION: Contact your Senator. Ask him or her to vote against the nomination of Jesse Furman to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Congress: the Republican led House – the Senate (ynative77.wordpress.com)

Just say NO to Jesse Furman!

All politics are local…

January 24, 2012

It has been said time and time again that all politics are local. While that may be true to a certain extent it’s not necessarily true across the board. Just take a look at the dog and pony show that is the ongoing Republican process for the nomination for President

There is nearly always some sort of dirt going on at the local levels of government, and it is virtually always by establishment types to ensure that they maintain control. Here in Wyoming right now there is a move underway to remove voter supported gadfly’s via the redistricting. That means cutting the districts up so that only “approved” people will get elected.

Sure, the law requires things to be reassessed every ten years. However, this is often used by one faction or another to further their particular agenda. One example might be a faction that favors more taxation in this or that application. Remember, The Taxed Enough Already movement was started with local control in mind, and that didn’t simply mean keeping a tight rein on our Congressmen. Think about the discussion at the federal levels right now about tax rates. Then take a look at all your local taxes, including the local and state taxes that are thinly disguised as “user fees.”

Then take a look at the locally elected folks, and just what they really stand for? How many really stand up for the State or Federal Constitution? How many have proposed the lifting of one law when ever another law is placed on the books? How many have proposed any law that places more freedom and liberty in the hands of those that have to live with these laws..? How many of them think that a citizen is going overboard, or being a threat when all they are doing is acting according to their rights under the law, and then act to change the law so that they “feel” better about things? The recent fiasco about carrying a gun in Casper at the council meetings is a great example of things along those lines.

Wyoming has been called the equality state, and for good reason. However, creeping misandry / mysandry, hoplophobia,and political correctness are changing the face of things here, and not for the better. What can be done about this change of the states social and political personality?

People need to become more involved, period. Putting your name out front, and calling out your local representatives when they go over to the dark side. At meetings, on the internet, and even on the sidewalks when the occasion presents itself. Get active, publicly with those organizations that really do stand up for all of our rights, and call out those that only pretend to do so on their hypocrisy.

We need a “Tar & Feather Brigade” so to speak that simply will not back down or compromise away our deepest values.

Brady Ad Off-Target: As Usual… and more

April 17, 2011

We have reported many times on the Brady Campaign’s rush to exploit tragedy for political gain.  Since its inception as the National Council to Control Handguns over 30 years ago, the group has premised its entire agenda on this kind of exploitation for political gain, and on the notion that having more gun control laws and, therefore, fewer guns, means that crime must necessarily decrease.

Since the senseless January 8 attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her innocent staff and constituents, anti-Second Amendment groups have been working overtime to exploit the tragedy to resurrect their political agendas.  The Brady Campaign’s most recent, tasteless ploy may represent a new low.

Urge Your Representative To Cosponsor H.R. 822, The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011:  Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) have introduced vital legislation that will enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

There are now only two states that have no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense.  Thirty-seven states have shall-issue permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems (Vermont has never required a permit).

Deadline Nears On BATFE Shotgun Ban Comments:  As we reported on Jan. 28, May 1 is the deadline for public comments concerning a shotgun importation ban that has been proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. A working group within the BATFE has recommended that any shotgun (semi-automatic, pump-action or any other) that has any one of 10 specific features should be banned from importation, on the grounds that such shotguns are not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for a readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”

Recently, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — who in the early 1990s was the House sponsor of the Brady Act and the federal “assault weapons” and “large” magazine ban of 1994-2004, and the ill-fated, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink “Brady II” bill — introduced S. 436, the multi-faceted “Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011.” Its simplistic and misleading title aside, this bill dispels any doubt about the goal gun control supporters have had in mind ever since they began harping about “closing the gun show loophole” more than a decade ago.

Schumer’s “fix” bypasses the question of gun shows altogether. In fact, the term “gun show” appears nowhere in his bill. S. 436 proposes that virtually all private transfers, regardless of location, be subject to National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks. The exceptions would be extremely narrow; in many cases, even lending someone a firearm would be subject to federal regulation.

SOURCE

Senate to Consider Bill Allowing Obama-Packing Scheme

Shortly, the U.S. Senate will consider legislation to take a number of key gun-related offices in the Department of Justice and remove them from the requirement of Senate confirmation.  The legislation is sponsored by anti-gun zealot Charles Schumer (D-NY) and weak-kneed Republican Lamar Alexander (R-TN).

S. 679 would give Barack Obama the ability to fill major gun-related Department of Justice slots with anti-gun partisans, without the pesky inconvenience of having to comply with the Constitution’s requirements for Senate confirmation.

Consider the following:

Barack Obama has not hesitated to load up his administration with anti-gun crazies like Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein (who thinks hunters should be sued in court because of the pain and suffering they inflict upon animals) and Andrew Traver (the nominee to head the ATF who never met a gun control proposal he didn’t like).

If he has been willing to pack his administration with anti-gun extremists — many of whom had to pass Senate confirmation — imagine what kind of lunatics Obama could nominate if the Schumer-Alexander legislation exempted major positions from constitutional advise-and-consent requirements.

To take posts like the official who composes statistics for the Justice Department (the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics) and the person who represents the Justice Department before Congress (Assistant Attorney General, Legislative Affairs) and turn them into “Political hack” positions is unacceptable.

ACTION:  Contact your Senators.  Urge them to filibuster S. 679, the Schumer-Alexander bill to exempt Justice Department gun-related posts from the Constitution’s advise-and-consent requirements.   Click here to contact your Senators.

Click here to read this important alert