A friend from high school just pointed out this great sign posted in someone’s yard. It appears the man’s neighbor is a proponent of total gun control. This is absolutely fabulous.
According to the caption on Facebook, the neighbor didn’t like his self-inflicted vulnerability made public and called police. The police told him his only recourse was to get a court order to remove the sign. Evidently the liberal left-door neighbor was unable to have the sign removed through the courts and city council. Our right-minded ally then made several outreach efforts in the hope of treating his neighbor’s political condition, to no avail.
On April 2, 2009, Nikki Goeser lost her husband Ben to a killer who broke a Tennessee law forbidding him to carry a firearm into a bar. Nikki and Ben were working that night, and Nikki left her firearm in the car. Though she was permitted to carry a concealed firearm, she obeyed the same law her husband’s killer ignored.
Because her pistol was locked in her car when the murderer drew his weapon, Nikki could do nothing as she watched the cold-blooded killer fire several rounds into her husband at point blank range. When the heartless assassin left, Nikki knelt in her husband’s blood as she tried to wish the life back into his body.
Nikki told her story at the 2nd Amendment Rally in Little Rock on February 27, 2010 and asked all who heard it to repeat it, in the hopes her story may somehow save lives.
Earlier this week, Wallace appeared on Dave Elswick’s afternoon radio show to denounce Griffin as a Washington “insider.” Elswick opened the segment by chastising the Republican’s national organization for interfering in Arkansas’ primary, but didn’t label Griffin an insider.
Wallace used the opportunity to publicize his “Insider Bomb,” an online fundraiser similar to the models used successfully in the campaigns of Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Marco Rubio in Florida. On his website, the Little Rock businessman posted a photo of an invitation to a Washington, DC fundraiser that had ended as Elswick’s 5:00 segment began. The invitation listed the price of admission at $1000 for PACs and $500 for individuals, and Wallace later blogged that taking money from outside the district makes a candidate beholden to special interests.
Apparently, Griffin didn’t respond to the insider charges. Scrolling through his status updates on Facebook and tweets on Twitter, we couldn’t find one remark that even acknowledged the criticisms of Wallace and Elswick. But influential Arkansas political blogger Jason Tolbert of The Tolbert Report says he doesn’t “understand why Wallace is trying to make a campaign issue over his opponent’s ability to raise a lot of money and receive support from folks like Sarah Palin, Rep. John Boehner, Rep. Eric Cantor, and Rep. Pete Sessions.”
Griffin doesn’t seem to fear being tagged an insider. His reference to the work he did to help get Roberts confirmed to the Supreme Court could certainly be used by Wallace and others leery of Washington influence to confirm their arguments. But Griffin evidently considers his ties to Washington an asset, or he certainly wouldn’t be emphasizing them himself.
At the rally we caught up with David Meeks, who until only weeks ago was vying for the same office as Wallace and Griffin, and asked if he planned to endorse one or the other. Meeks withdrew only a few days after posting a status update on Facebook and a blog post charging Republicans in Washington with interfering in the Arkansas primary. But he informed us he has no intention of endorsing Wallace or Griffin. Both, he said, stand for conservative values.
Only time will tell which candidate voters in the 2nd District will choose in the Republican primary. Their position on the 2nd Amendment won’t differentiate them, but the “insider” argument might. It appears to be a major part of Wallace’s strategy, and Griffin doesn’t seem bothered enough by the label to counter it.
from the Fox Forum
Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick
By Ken Blackwell
Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.
According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.
In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.
Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.
But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.
That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
Apparently there are no limits to the current administration’s willingness and ability to lie to propagate its liberal agenda. It’s now known that the administration’s recent claims that 90% of weapons used in the Mexican drug war on our southern border come from the US are outright erroneous exaggerations. The Obama administration has purposely presented as fact, false claims and propaganda with the intention of mobilizing the American people to join its crusade against the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
The President has loaded his cabinet with gun-haters in almost every critical position. He’s tried hard to avoid political heat from gun-rights activists by keeping his anti-gun agenda in the background as he focuses his energy on fulfilling campaign promises for tax increases, apologizing to the US-hating international community, and drastically increasing the federal deficit, just to name a few.
Still, Obama’s desire to strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights boils to the surface from time to time, reminding everyone who’s paying attention that the battle for the survival of this fundamental right will likely blow to the fore in the near future.
The gun-banning mentality of the administration reared its head last month when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Mexico. Not only did Clinton place the blame on American drug addicts for the thousands of Mexicans dying at the hands of that country’s murderous drug cartels, but she went on to blame American guns (and by extension, law-abiding American who fight to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights) for the actions of the vicious criminals who prey on anyone who stands in their way.
“Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.”
“Clearly, what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity … to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible. That’s not right.”
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton
The President himself publicly pronounced that American gun runners supplied 90% of the weapons used by Mexican drug cartels in their violent campaign to control the Mexican narcotics trade. When faced with indisputable evidence that his claims invalid, he pulled a slick semantic trick reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s famous “definition of ‘is’” response and reiterated his false claims. Obama didn’t have a problem with the definition of “is,” but seems not to understand the meaning of the word “recovered.”
The problem stems from the fact that the Mexican government actually “recovered” about 29,000 guns from crime scenes in 2007 & 2008. Of those, 11,000 were submitted to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to trace their origins. Of those submitted, only 6,000 were successfully traced and 5,114 of those 6,000 were found to have originated in the US.
Obama’s fictitious claims lead the American public to believe more than 26,000 of the 29,000 recovered firearms were supplied by gun-runners in the US. The reality is that only 5,114 of the 29,000 fit that bill. Obama’s 90% figure paints the picture that, if we strengthen our gun laws, Mexican society would be free of weapons and the violence would stop. Looking past the administration’s propaganda, one realizes no such transformation will come from stripping Americans of their rights.
President Obama used the aforementioned misleading propaganda to outflank 2nd Amendment proponents by calling for the ratification of the UN treaty to ban small arms (aka CIFTA). This treaty would give the UN authority to bypass Congress and regulate US gun laws. Your constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms would be placed at the mercy of the anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-Democratic dictators around the world!
The President hasn’t given up his gun-ban ideology. The battle may have been temporarily placed on the back burner, but it still looms on the horizon. These recent manifestations of his perpetual hatred for the 2nd Amendment and its advocates may even mark the first shots.
The 2nd Amendment is once again under attack, this time by a bipartisan anti-gun coalition in the US House.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has introduced H.R. 2159 (aka “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009″) seeks to give Obama’s gun ban enthusiast Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to decide who can and who cannot purchase a firearm. No trial, no hearing, just Eric Holder’s whimsical determination that a person might be involved in a terrorist act, now or sometime in the future, will be enough to keep an American citizen to exercise his/her constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
According to the NRA, “H.R. 2159 would give ‘the Attorney General the authority to deny the sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit to dangerous terrorists. . . . if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’”
Not long ago, the Department of Homeland Security distributed a classified memo declaring virtually every conservative American and veteran a potential terrorist. So all of us considered “right-wing extremists” by the current administration are likely to find ourselves on Holder’s list of Americans who will be denied this constitutional right.
I seem to recall, in the not too distant past, liberals up in arms claiming President Bush was using fear of terrorism as an excuse to suspend Americans’ constitutional rights. (And Obama continues these very same practices today.) I guess these liberals consider it okay for a Democrat to trash the Constitution.
The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Sign this petition today and contact your representatives to tell them DON’T mess with our 2nd Amendment rights!
Here’s a woman who understands why the 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights! Notice Chuck Shumer seems unmoved by her story in the video.
Tell everyone you know who doesn’t believe we should have the right to defend ourselves to watch this video. If they still don’t understand, there’s no hope for them.
We’re facing perhaps the most anti-2nd amendment administration in the history of our country starting 1/20/09, we need to be prepared to fight tooth and nail to protect our right to defend our lives, families, and property.
I received this in an email the other day and decided to just post it as is here. It’s a true story from 1999 in Great Britain. Though many of us recall when these events actually occurred, I’m glad someone thought to forward it to me again because several years have passed and there are almost certainly many gun control proponents–too young to recall these events–who honestly believe that gun control reduces crime.
I don’t know who authored it, but it’s accurate.
It is now closer to reality than you think…………
You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. Atleast two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.
“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for theburglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”
All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENTIN OUR CONSTITUTION.
“..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..”–Samuel Adams
Now, crime rates continue to climb in Britain. In 2003, the BBC must have hated to print this article stating the number of gun crimes increased by approximately 50% in two years. Here‘s an article from 2007 by the Cogito Ergo Geek with a lot more detailed numbers comparing the crime rates in the U.S. vs Britain after their gun ban.
This Citizen’s Journal article shows Obama’s cabinet choices should worry those of us who value our 2nd Amendment rights. Holder, Clinton, Napolitano, and more tend to share the views of the gun ban lobby.
With such an all-star cast of gun banners on Obama’s staff, gun owners need to be prepared to stand up for their rights for the next four years. Keep your Senators’ and Representatives’ email addresses and phone numbers handy, you’ll be needing them.
I’ll close with the actual words of the 2nd Amendment:
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.