What to do when your neighbor hates guns…

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.

Wife of Murder Victim’s Passionate Plea for Gun Rights

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.

Part I

Part II

Part III

NRA News: UN Doomsday Treaty With Ginny Simone

It’s time to wake up and see what the United Nations and gun ban groups are trying to do to subvert the US Constitution. A must see for anyone who values his/her 2nd Amendment rights!

Obamacare May Target Gun Owners

by Jillian Bandes at Townhall.com

Who might be the next victim of Obamacare? Gun owners.

Government health care reform “will most likely dump your gun-related health data into a government database…that can preclude you from owning firearms,” said Gun Owners of America, in an email notification to their members, shortly before the health care debate on Saturday. GOA said that diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorders or other mental illnesses could be a reason the government uses to charge you more for health insurance under the public plan, or as part of co-op regulations.

Larry Pratt, executive director of GOA, said the chances of Uncle Sam using his power to regulate health care based on gun ownership was even better because Kathleen Sebelius is the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that would be in charge of specific health care regulations and their enforcement. Sebelius has a long anti-gun history, responsible for vetoes of concealed carry bills in Kansas.

“Gun owners are likely to be in there with fat people,” said Pratt.

It wouldn’t be the first time gun ownership has been tied to health regulation. GOA claims that over 150,000 vets with post-traumatic stress disorder are currently on a list that prohibits gun purchases. But Obamacare would expand government health care to millions of additional Americans.

Calls to Sebelius’ office were not returned, though a member of her press office laughed out loud when questioned about the prospect of health care being tied to gun ownership, saying, “that’s crazy.”

But Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, said such regulations were quite possible. The problem stems from government’s overriding cost-benefit assessments and their take on health issues.

…More

Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control

by Drew Zahn at WorldNetDaily

Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.

“Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms,” Clinton said in a statement. “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area.”

Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America’s Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn’t pass through Congress.

…More

Gun control coming soon on Obama agenda?

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.

New attack on 2nd Amendment–HR 2159

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.'”

[Read full text of HR 2159]

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!

Obama assault on 2nd Amendment begins!

We knew it was coming! Though he lied and stated he supported the 2nd Amendment on the campaign trail, there was no doubt in our minds all along on his true stance on our right to bear arms.

Oh, but he’s not seeking legislation to undermine the 2nd Amendment. He wants to take away our rights of self protection through the UN! That’s right, an international treaty is the vehicle he plans to help him strip away our 2nd Amendment rights!

In February of last year, Obama-the-campaigner lied to help him win the election.

“I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation” like background checks, he said during a news conference.

On his recent trip to Mexico, the long-time gun control enthusiast President lamented to Mexican President Felipe Calderon that it just wasn’t possible to push stronger gun control legislation through Congress at this time. His administration has even worked hard to pin the blame for Mexico’s drug gang violence on American gun owners.

Recent court rulings affirming the individual right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment made his quest to gut the Bill of Rights even more difficult, creating even more stumbling blocks in the path to stripping law-abiding Americans of their rights. But the Obamessiah doesn’t plan to let such Constitutional guarantees and the system of checks and balances deny him his prize–a far more vulnerable America, vulnerable to government and criminals it can’t control! Hell no. If he can’t get through the Constitutional obstacle course set up by our founders for very good reasons, he’ll go around it!

Gun rights groups warned us as the President staffed his Cabinet with a who’s who list of lifelong gun-banners, but a naive public and naive politicians continued to believe the President’s lies on the campaign trail. Now their prophetic cries must be heard!

If the Senate ratifies this treaty, signed by President Clinton in 1997, we can look forward to an international gun registry, open to foreign governments which will have the power to extradite American gun owners who they charge with violating the treaty.

Here’s the list of demands on signatories of the treaty at a national level. You’ll notice many are vague enough to be wide open to interpretation by an administration hostile to the 2nd Amendment.  I’ve emphasized phrases that are especially worrisome to those of us who value freedom and the right of self protection.

• To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, or their diversion to unauthorized recipients.
• To adopt and implement, in the States that have not already done so, the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offences under their domestic law the illegal manufacture, possession, stockpiling and trade of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction, in order to ensure that those engaged in such activities can be prosecuted under appropriate national penal codes.
• To establish, or designate as appropriate, national coordination agencies or bodies and institutional infrastructure responsible for policy guidance, research and monitoring of efforts to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. This should include aspects of the illicit manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.
• To establish or designate, as appropriate, a national point of contact to act as liaison between States on matters relating to the implementation of the Programme of Action.
• To ensure that henceforth licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process. This marking should be unique and should identify the country of manufacture and also provide information that enables the national authorities of that country to identify the manufacturer and serial number so that the authorities concerned can identify and trace each weapon.
• To adopt where they do not exist and enforce, all the necessary measures to prevent the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of any unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons.
• To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.
• To ensure responsibility for all small arms and light weapons held and issued by the State and effective measures for tracing such weapons.
• To assess applications for export authorizations according to strict national regulations and procedures that cover all small arms and light weapons and are consistent with the existing responsibilities of States under relevant international law, taking into account in particular the risk of diversion of these weapons into the illegal trade. Likewise, to establish or maintain an effective national system of export and import licensing or authorization, as well as measures on international transit, for the transfer of all small arms and light weapons, with a view to combating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.
• To put in place and implement adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to ensure the effective control over the export and transit of small arms and light weapons, including the use of authenticated end-user certificates and effective legal and enforcement measures.
• To make every effort, in accordance with national laws and practices, without prejudice to the right of States to re-export small arms and light weapons that they have previously imported, to notify the original exporting State in accordance with their bilateral agreements before the retransfer of those weapons.
• To develop adequate national legislation or administrative procedures regulating the activities of those who engage in small arms and light weapons brokering. This legislation or procedures should include measures such as registration of brokers, licensing or authorization of brokering transactions as well as the appropriate penalties for all illicit brokering activities performed within the State’s jurisdiction and control.
• To take appropriate measures, including all legal or administrative means, against any activity that violates a United Nations Security Council arms embargo in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
• To ensure that all confiscated, seized or collected small arms and light weapons are destroyed, subject to any legal constraints associated with the preparation of criminal prosecutions, unless another form of disposition or use has been officially authorized and provided that such weapons have been duly marked and registered.
• To ensure, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States, that the armed forces, police or any other body authorized to hold small arms and light weapons establish adequate and detailed standards and procedures relating to the management and security of their stocks of these weapons. These standards and procedures should, inter alia, relate to: appropriate locations for stockpiles; physical security measures; control of access to stocks; inventory management and accounting control; staff training; security, accounting and control of small arms and light weapons held or transported by operational units or authorized personnel; and procedures and sanctions in the event of thefts or loss.
• To regularly review, as appropriate, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States, the stocks of small arms and light weapons held by armed forces, police and other authorized bodies and to ensure that such stocks declared by competent national authorities to be surplus to requirements are clearly identified, that programmes for the responsible disposal, preferably through destruction, of such stocks are established and implemented and that such stocks are adequately safeguarded until disposal.
• To destroy surplus small arms and light weapons designated for destruction, taking into account, inter alia, the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on methods of destruction of small arms, light weapons, ammunition and explosives (S/2000/1092) of 15 November 2000.
• To develop and implement, including in conflict and post-conflict situations, public awareness and confidence-building programmes on the problems and consequences of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, including, where appropriate, the public destruction of surplus weapons and the voluntary surrender of small arms and light weapons, if possible, in cooperation with civil society and non-governmental organizations, with a view to eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.
• To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons, particularly in post-conflict situations, unless another form of disposition or use has been duly authorized and such weapons have been marked and the alternate form of disposition or use has been recorded, and to include, where applicable, specific provisions for these programmes in peace agreements.
• To address the special needs of children affected by armed conflict, in particular the reunification with their family, their reintegration into civil society, and their appropriate rehabilitation.
• To make public national laws, regulations and procedures that impact on the prevention, combating and eradicating of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects and to submit, on a voluntary basis, to relevant regional and international organizations and in accordance with their national practices, information on, inter alia, (a) small arms and light weapons confiscated or destroyed within their jurisdiction; and (b) other relevant information such as illicit trade routes and techniques of acquisition that can contribute to the eradication of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.

The United States already has laws against the “illicit” trade of small arms, but the intentionally vague language leaves broad room for interpretation of these laws’ adequacy under the terms of the treaty. The call for the public destruction of seized and surplus firearms along with advertising campaigns to “inform” the public of the consequences of the “illicit” arms trade will become nothing more than propagada for gun ban groups, intended to mold generations of recruits for those who oppose the individual right to bear arms.  The registration and tracking schemes have time and again failed to pass constitutional legislative and judicial hurdles, but the treaty subverts our Constitution and authorizes international authorities to ensure our Bill of Rights is shredded.

The fact is the President has never supported the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.  His voting record is all the evidence one needs to recognize he lied when he stated otherwise.  Now, since he can’t achieve the disarmament of the American people through the Constitutional power granted his office, he seeks to subvert our country’s laws and hand us over to be controlled by the international body.

Mr. President, I believe you may have just awakened a sleeping tiger far more powerful than you imagine.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”–Thomas Jefferson

A testimonial for the individual right to bear arms

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.

Thank God for the 2nd Amendment!

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.

Sound familiar?

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:

Amendment II

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.
 
*emphasis mine