Bullet 'Health' Fears Dry Up Ammo Supplies

Obama's 'green' procurement plan creating 'de facto ban'

by F. Michael Maloof

WASHINGTON – At the same time federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security are buying up ammunition stockpiles around the country and shipping large quantities overseas for use by the military, the Obama administration is now pushing states to mandate “green ammunition” that is free of lead.

The result? Ammo supplies for law-abiding citizens have dried up in recent months, and experts expect it to get worse.

“The potential exists for a de facto ammunition ban,” says Ryan Bronson of the Minnesota-based National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Some sources even describe the developments as a conspiracy to limit Americans’ Second Amendment right.

Unprecedented ammunition shortages have been in headlines for months, with stores often limiting purchases to one or two boxes, if they have the desired caliber at all. Often retail shelves that used to hold abundant ammunition supplies display nothing but dust.

Now it appears the developments creating that unwelcome convergence include a campaign to move toward non-toxic, non-lead bullets because of the health concerns associated with lead, the mass purchases government is known to make, and even the shipments of supplies overseas.

Health concerns
Sources say health-care advocates are arguing that lead bullet fragments, especially in game such as venison, are neurotoxins that can harm children and developing fetuses.

Even the U.S. Geological Survey has had something to say about lead-based ammunition. It estimates that nationwide there are 400,000 pieces of lead shot per acre in areas where game is hunted, which can potentially be eaten or washed into waterways.

The USGS further claims 650,000 metric tons of lead were fired off in 2012, the second largest use of lead besides storage batteries.

Supporters of traditional lead ammunition, however, say that there is no study to show any significant reduction in wildlife populations from lead poisoning nor danger to people who eat game that has been killed either from birdshot or more powerful rounds.

‘Green’ ammo
Developing “green ammunition” has proven to be slow going, as the federal government and some states are looking at alternative metals that can provide the same weight as a lead bullet.

Those options include copper and tungsten materials, but they are so hard that technically they could violate federal regulations barring armor-piercing ammunition.

Meanwhile, the Department of Defense purchasing program outlines regulatory guidance such as Executive Order 13423 in “Green Purchasing” on a variety of products.

“DOD is committed to being a good steward of the environment,” a DOD brochure said. “Always think green at the start of the acquisition process!”

While environmental organizations have periodically expressed concern about lead in ammunition, it has not garnered widespread attention until recently.

But sources say they believe those pursuing the Obama administration’s known agenda for restricting access to weaponry and ammunition, which saw daylight after the Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colo., mass shootings, are now adding environmentalism to their anti-gun arsenal of tactics.

Generating an ammunition shortage by pushing for still unavailable “green” ammo, while buying up existing lead-based supplies, would contribute to that, they say.

]The government’s Green Procurement Program previously addressed:

• Recycled content products
• Energy Star and energy-efficient products
• Alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuels
• Bio based products
• Non-ozone depleting substances
• Environmentally preferable products and services
• Priority chemicals.

But now ammunition has been added, with the apparent aim of using the federal agency green purchasing program to force ammunition manufacturers to switch from lead to non-lead bullets.

Until that’s available, sources say, the federal government continues to reach agreements to buy “all” lead-based ammunition in pre-production from major manufacturers.

“This could explain the huge FEMA purchase run-up over the last couple years,” one weapons industry source said, referring to the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the DHS.

Even the U.S. military is supposed to shift to “green,” non-toxic or lead-free composite projectiles, said to be more “earth friendly” and better for the environment. Sources say it will cost four times as much to make “green” ammunition.

Overseas shipments

And, sources add, a complication means that lead bullets sent overseas to Iraq and then to Afghanistan to combat the war on terror cannot be returned to the U.S. because the ammunition was originally transported without proper export licenses.

Moreover, large quantities of the lead-based ammunition stockpiles in the U.S. are being directed to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center under DHS, sources say.

At the same time, the FLETC is purchasing lead-free ammunition as it becomes available for training, referring to as “reduced hazard ammunition,” or RHA.

Because the FLETC in Georgia is a major federal law enforcement center, sources say some 30 agencies use the facility’s contracts to purchase more than three billion rounds of RHA.

Some lead-based ammunition is being imported from South Korea, Turkey, Brazil, Bulgaria and other countries to make up for existing shortfalls.

These imports will help meet demand until domestic production can once again make up for the DHS purchase of more than 1.6 billion rounds, which has effectively diminished supply and the ability for the average U.S. citizen to purchase it for legal purposes.

The Green Procurement Program has transpired over the course of three administrations. It was begun under President Bill Clinton, pushed aside by President George W. Bush and then revived by President Obama.

FBI sources tell WND that the “green” ammunition will never be acceptable to everyday shooters, or to law enforcement, since firearms would need to be adjusted at great individual expense to handle this new ammunition, leading to possible jamming and potential damage to firearms.

The FBI source added that “green” ammunition is used during training, but lead-based ammunition will continue to be used operationally.

Volatile subject

The ammunition issue became so volatile only a week ago that the House of Representatives voted to stop the DHS from entering into new contracts to buy millions of rounds until a report on the government’s need is assembled.

If approved by the Senate and signed by Obama, the bill from Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., would mean a delay in DHS plans to buy another 1.1 billion rounds until the report is completed.

Only two months ago, Fox News reported that schools training individuals to handle guns were allocating staff time to hunt the Web for ammunition supplies and customers were being told to bring their own ammo.

While there has been a massive jump in purchases of weapons and ammunition since Obama took office, the last few months have seen shortages reach a critical point. Some police departments have asked their town’s citizens for help in maintaining a supply adequate for their work.

WND reported in April that the federal government admitted it was running the stock of ammunition dry.

Word came when then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was talking to members of Congress and was asked about the ammunition issue.

Questioned by Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., about reports of the massive purchases, Napolitano explained that her department dismissed the concerns when they arose, not feeling them worth a response.\

Huge purchases confirmed

Napolitano said she thought reports of DHS’s purchase of 1.6 billion rounds – enough for many years of war at the rate ammunition is used by the U.S. military these days – were accurate.

“This was a five-year strategic sourcing contract for up to one-point-whatever billion rounds,” she confirmed.

The actual reports have contained the figure 1.6 billion rounds. And calculations done by the Washington Examiner suggest that would be enough for “something like a 24-year supply of ammunition on hand.’

What it is accomplishing is that other consumers of ammunition, from the weekend hunter to police departments, are finding the shelves bare.

For example, Utica, N.Y., police have been told it could take up to 10 months now to get the ammunition they order.

F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Obama: Attempts to Void 2nd Amendment

The latest firearm registration scheme is to claim that a registration data base is needed to prevent ‘Straw Purchases’ and/or ‘Gun Trafficking’.

No such registration is required because they can already trace firearms that are recovered after the commission of a crime; provided that the firearm was not sold on the black-market.

A roster of gun owners is required when the government needs to know who has firearms that were not used in a crime. Can everyone say, As in Confiscation?

The 2nd Amendment is there so that the people can protect themselves from government tyranny. Clearly, providing the government with a list of firearm owners undermines the intent of the Constitution!

The Obama administration is attempting to void the 2nd Amendment through an Inter Nation Treaty. They have pursued two treaties toward that goal. One such treaty is a US/Latin American treaty, the second is the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Early on, the administration released some genned-up statistics that claimed that a large number of the cartel weapons came from the U.S. In an effort to support the false claims, Attorney General Eric Holder and his minions at the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) dreamed up and executed a plan called “Fast and Furious”.

“Fast and Furious” was a gun smuggling operation in which the BATFE aided and abetted gun traffickers that smuggled more than 2000 firearms from the U.S. into Mexico and directly into the hands of drug cartels. The Mexican government was never notified about the program.

It was the administration hope that these firearms would be used to kill many Mexicans and thereby create a big backlash with the public and in the Congress so that they could push through a treaty that would kill the 2nd Amendment.

Unfortunately for the administration, a DEA officer wasmurdered with one of the smugglrd firearms anbd several BATFE agents felt that it was wrong for them to violate the very laws that they were sworn to enforce and they notified members of Congress as to what had been done.

Having failed with ‘Fast and Furious’ the administration has gleefully jumped on the tragedy in Newtown to be the crisis they need to push through their disarmament plan.

The most notable ‘straw-purchase’ was conducted by New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is so anti-gun that he will stoop to anything to make a case. The mayor hired several investigators to go to Virginia and purchase firearms from local gun dealers. The investigators presented false ID’s and lied on the forms used to approve the purchases. After the ‘fake buyers’ passed the background checks, the guns were sold.

Bloomberg tried to use these transactions as proof that the dealers were selling guns illegally.

In reality it was Bloomberg and his hired investigators that broke both state and federal laws while purchasing the guns.

If the administration is serious about ‘gun trafficking’ and ‘straw-purchases’, they should prosecute the major cases outlined above!

  Comments are invited! Send feedback to: WatchDog
.

'History And Common Sense Prove That Gun-Free Zones Are Dangerous'

Charl Van Wyk, who carried a gun to a church service, shot back at terrorists bent on mass slaughter and ultimately was credited with saving hundreds of lives, says politicians should rise above the "politically correct" and do what's right to save the lives of children and teachers.

Weighing in on the current debate in America over the public's access to self-defense, he said that only in a "sheer utopian fantasy" would people expect that "homicidal maniacs" would follow gun laws.

"In Israel teachers and parents, serving as school aides, are armed at all times on school grounds, with semi-automatic weapons. Since this policy was adopted in the 1970s, attacks by gunmen at schools in Israel have ceased," he said.

"In 2004 Thailand adopted a similar approach for safety of children. It may be politically incorrect, but it does have the advantage of saving the lives of innocent children and teachers. The policy? Encouraging teachers to carry firearms." he continued.

"On 27 April 2004, the Associated Press reported, 'Interior Minister Bhokin Bhalakula ordered provincial governors to give teachers licenses to buy guns if they want to even though it would mean bringing firearms into the classrooms when the region's 925 schools reopen May 17 after two months of summer holiday.'

"Though Thailand's government is extremely hostile to gun ownership in general, it has recognized that teachers ought to be able to safeguard their students and themselves," he said.

"Maybe we can learn something from these countries."

Currently, the Obama administration is offering numerous proposals to ban certain weapons, certain types and generally make the public's access to firearms more difficult.

Van Wyk's own story of self-defense – and the defense of the innocent – dates to July 25, 1993 – the day that would become known as the day of the St. James Massacre. That was when terrorists invaded the St. James Church in South Africa with automatic weapons. About a dozen members of the congregation were killed, and dozens more were injured.

But the terrorists fled when Van Wyk, who was carrying a handgun with him, returned fire, injuring one terrorist.

Van Wyk was recognized by authorities with a commendation for his actions, which likely saved dozens, if not hundreds, of lives.

His story is told in "Shooting Back" The Right and Duty of Self-Defense," both book and DVD versions.

Van Wyk notes that the commander of the church attackers, Letlapa Mphahlele, later said, "There we thought that the church was a 'gun free zone,' but boy did he (van Wyk) have a surprise for us!"

"U.S. school shooting incidents prove that proclaiming gun-free zones at learning institutions does not prohibit homicidal maniacs from entering these premises. In fact, expecting such an individual to honor a law prohibiting firearms is sheer utopian fantasy," van Wyk said.

"History and common sense prove that gun-free zones are dangerous," he said. "Do mass shootings ever occur in police stations, on shooting ranges or at gun shows? Mass murderers select soft targets for their acts of violence.

"Declaring gun-free zones, risks leaving potential victims defenseless," he said. "Gun-free zones merely make the working environment of the criminals safer."

He said any move eliminate Americans' access to self-defense should be opposed.

"We need to refuse to support any laws that leave us defenseless against murderers, robbers, rapists and arsonists."

"We, as Christian gun owners, do not put our trust in our guns, but in God. A firearm is merely a tool that can be used for righteous purposes, like the protection of life, or negative i.e. violent means. 'Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the Name of the Lord our God.' Psalm 20:7," van Wyk said.

He noted Oliver Cromwell's advice to troops at the Battle of Edgehill in 1642, "'Put your trust in God, my boys, but mind to keep your powder dry.'"

Van Wyk said it is "by God's grace" that he has survived two violent attacks with guns.

The first was the terror attack on the church, and the second an attempted car-jacking.

"In both cases the gun in my hand was far more useful than a cop of the phone," he said.

He also said the simple logic of self-defense supports access to weapons.

"People often blame guns for crime, as if crime did not exist before guns were invented," he said. "I'd far rather be armed and never need my gun, than need a gun and not have one."

And he said the suddenness of such attacks leaves only one option for protection.

"The only person who can make any difference when faced with a violent attacker is the person who is right THERE, right THEN," he said.

In a letter to the editor van Wyk wrote after he fended off two armed robbers who were trying to carjack him, he said, "Some believe that an armed response to this type of tyranny will only escalate the violence. Not so – an armed response actually diffused the attack and my two passengers and I are, by God's grace, blessed to still be alive."

"Instant response to a life-threatening situation is always best – 'the clean up team' are just that, 'the clean up team'. The police cannot be everywhere, all the time, to protect you," he continued.

He previously noted that self-defense is biblical.

"Sometimes we also read into Scripture that which is not taught, e.g., 'But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also' (Matthew 5:39). This is dealing with our response to a personal insult. It should not be read to mean: 'If someone murders your wife, let him murder your child too.' The Bible clearly teaches, 'A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well' (Proverbs 25:26). Surely we would be 'faltering before the wicked' if we cannot protect worshipers in a church!"

"Besides the mother's womb, gun-free zones are the most dangerous places on earth," he said, and he argues strict gun control actually lead to more crime.

"At the end of the day, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves. The only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun; nobody else will be of much help," he said.


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

What Big-Gov't Crowd Fears The Most

by Andrew Napolitano
In all the noise caused by the Obama administration’s direct assault on the right of every person to keep and bear arms, the essence of the issue has been drowned out. The president and his big-government colleagues want you to believe that only the government can keep you free and safe, so to them, the essence of this debate is about obedience to law.

To those who have killed innocents among us, obedience to law is the last of their thoughts. And to those who believe that the Constitution means what it says, the essence of this debate is not about the law; it is about personal liberty in a free society. It is the exercise of this particular personal liberty – the freedom to defend yourself when the police cannot or will not and the freedom to use weapons to repel tyrants if they take over the government – that the big-government crowd fears the most.

Let’s be candid: All government fears liberty. By its nature, government is the negation of liberty. God has given us freedom, and the government has taken it away. George Washington recognized this when he argued that government is not reason or eloquence but force. If the government had its way, it would have a monopoly on force.

Government compels, restrains and takes. Thomas Jefferson understood that when he wrote that our liberties are unalienable and endowed by our Creator, and the only reason we have formed governments is to engage them to protect our liberties. We enacted the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to restrain the government. Yet somewhere along the way, government got the idea that it can more easily protect the freedom of us all from the abuses of a few by curtailing the freedom of us all. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that’s where we are today.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd cannot point to a single incident in which curtailing the freedom of law-abiding Americans has stopped criminals or crazies from killing. It is obvious that criminals don’t care what the law says because they think they can get away with their violations of it. And those unfortunates who are deranged don’t recognize any restraint on their own behavior, as they cannot mentally distinguish right from wrong and cannot be expected to do so in the future, no matter what the law says.

When the Second Amendment was written and added to the Constitution, the use of guns in America was common. At the same time, King George III – whom we had just defeated and who was contemplating another war against us, which he would start in 1812 – no doubt ardently wished that he had stripped his colonists of their right to self-defense so as to subdue their use of violence to secede from Great Britain. That act of secession, the American Revolution, was largely successful because close to half of the colonists were armed and did not fear the use of weaponry.

If the king and the Parliament had enacted and enforced laws that told them who among the colonists owned guns or that limited the power of the colonists’ guns or the amount of ammunition they could possess, our Founding Fathers would have been hanged for treason. One of the secrets of the Revolution – one not taught in public schools today – is that the colonists actually had superior firepower to the king. The British soldiers had standard-issue muskets, which propelled a steel ball or several of them about 50 yards from the shooter. But the colonists had the long gun – sometimes called the Kentucky or the Tennessee – which propelled a single steel ball about 200 yards, nearly four times as far as the British could shoot. Is it any wonder that by Yorktown in 1781, the king and the Parliament had lost enough men and treasure to surrender?

The lesson here is that free people cannot remain free by permitting the government – even a popularly elected one that they can unelect – to take their freedoms away. The anti-freedom crowd in the government desperately wants to convey the impression that it is doing something to protect us. So it unconstitutionally and foolishly seeks, via burdensome and intrusive registration laws, laws restricting the strength of weapons and the quantity and quality of ammunition and, the latest trick, laws that impose financial liability on law-abiding manufacturers and sellers for the criminal behavior of some users, to make it so burdensome to own a gun that the ordinary folks who want one will give up their efforts to obtain one.

We cannot let ourselves fall down this slippery slope. The right to self-defense is a natural individual right that pre-exists the government. It cannot morally or constitutionally be taken away absent individual consent or due process. Kings and tyrants have taken this right away. We cannot let a popular majority take it away, for the tyranny of the majority can be as destructive to freedom as the tyranny of a madman.

Note:  Andrew P. Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written eight books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent are "The Freedom Answer Book" and "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed


Comments are invited!
send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

A Bit Of History-Why We Have The 2nd Amendment

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

A Legal Immigrant Testifies Against Gun Control

On Monday (01/28/2013), a public hearing on gun violence was held in Hartford, Conn.  At that hearing, a legal immigrant, Henson Ong issued a passionate defense of the Second Amendment and argued that gun control simply does not work.




IT IS HARD TO ARGUE WITH FACTS!

"Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my opinion and give my testimony in opposition to the majority of the proposed bills, which do nothing to deter future crimes;  Gun control doesn’t work."

"Your own history is replete with high school rifle teams, boy scout marksmanship merit badges; You could buy rifles at hardware stores, you could order them… your country was awash in readily available firearms and ammunition, and yet in your past you did not have mass school shootings. What changed?  It was not that the availability of guns suddenly exploded or increased, it actually was decreased. What changed was societal decay!

"If gun control actually did work, Washington, D.C. and Chicago would be the safest cities in your nation. But [they are] not, they have the toughest gun laws and the highest crime and murder rates."


 “My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime usually do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when all other rights have failed. A free people can only afford to make this mistake once.”

 by Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissent on the case of Silveira v. Lockye in 2002.

Ed's Note:  Studies show--In reality, school shooting deaths have actually experienced a steady decline between 1993 and 2010!

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

.

Obama Effort To Strip Constitutional Gun Rights May Start American Civil War

Examiner.com
Are you ready to wake up in an America where your family is defenseless against enemies foreign or domestic? This reality is right around the corner. A day after his reelection, Barack Obama signaled the United Nations that he is ready to sign an Arms Treaty to strip you of your U.S. Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.

Obama’s move to sign a United Nations’ Gun Ban Treaty will escalate states’ effort for seceding from America.

This is not new. The United Nations made earlier attempts during the administration of former President George W. Bush. But, President Bush soundly rejected the measure. Now, President Obama, fresh off of this presidential win, feels emboldened to go forward with his design to unilaterally dismember the guaranteed constitutional protections citizens of this nation are entitled to.

Do you feel comfortable with the idea that the U.S. State Department under the control of either Ambassador Hillary Clinton will truly represent your interest? What about her possible replacement nominee, America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice? This is the same Ambassador Rice’s who went on five television network shows to cover up the truth of what happened to four Americans murdered on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya.

Where does that leave Americans?

The real question is what are you prepared to do in order to defend your right to defend your family? Will you wait to see what happens? Or will you take the necessary steps to make certain that you will not have to wait and see if United Nations gun control officials knock at your door, demanding, and “Gun license and registration, please!”

The right to control your guns is not open for debate or for negotiation. It is a sovereign right that no foreign organization, including the United Nations has the right or the authority to undertake, because a president gives the go ahead.

When any president decides to destroy the nation’s U.S. Constitutional rights afforded its citizens, which he has sworn to uphold, he no longer has the authority to represent the nation’s citizens. He must be impeached!

The U.S. Constitution says with great clarity in Article II, Section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Your signed petitions should be forwarded to John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives according to Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

You do not need the permission of the White House nor do you need the permission of the mainstream media to determine your course of action to demand the impeachment of Barack Obama. Develop a list of particulars that petitioners in all fifty states will sign. The secessionist movement has already gotten the ball rolling.

Several hundred thousand petitioners representing all fifty states, including battleground state Ohio have signed to secede from the union. This is far more serious than a group of Hollywood actors and entertainers who threatened to vacate and move to Canada after President Bush was reelected in 2004.

This is a significant and determined first step in the process to take back this nation from a president who has made numerous attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Impeachment for the purposes of clarification comes from English law and was used in 1640 case against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. He had, “traiterously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realms . . . and instead thereof, to introduce Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law.”

Obama has moved to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the United States, by refusing to enforce DOMA which is congressional legislation passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He has issued an executive order which circumvents federal immigration law, granting nearly a million illegal immigrants the right to be protected from removal which the law demands. These are just a few of his attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

So in plain English, President Obama should face impeachable offenses that can be determined in the House of Representatives.

Begin now to take your first steps of many to protect the integrity of your Second Amendment U.S. Constitution’s right to protect your family. Today, tonight and tomorrow consider: what are you prepared to do to protect your family?


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Sneaky Dems Attempt Gun Control In CyberSecurity Bill

Reprinted from Freedom Outpost  (July 27, 2012)
by Tim Brown

Democrat Senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines. May I ask what in the world high capacity gun magazines have to do with cybersecurity? I already know. They have nothing to do with it, but this is how our Congress works.

However, with this particular amendment, S.A.2575, was sponsored by Democrats Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). These liberal Senators are looking to make it illegal to transfer or posses large capacity devices that feed guns more than 10 rounds with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition. Apparently you can have a thousand round drum of those on your weapon and you’re ok.

The amendment is identical to a different bill that was sponsored by Frank Lautenberg.

In the first place, the stupid thing about the law is that it would only affect these devices that were sold or transferred after the law took effect. So people they are afraid of can still legally own these, just as long as they got them before the law was in effect. That makes absolutely no sense.

Chuck Shumer, the New York Democrat, and yes this is the same New York that gave the country the likes of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was pushing for passage of this amendment.

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.

Mr. Schumer seems oblivious that the only people that have compromised are Republicans and frankly they need to stop compromising. That’s what gets us into this mess in the first place. The gun control laws on the books are the result of Democrats calling for more gun control and Republicans caving to that demand. The more we compromise, the further left we drift.

I think we can find common ground. Stop making new gun control laws Mr. Schumer. The government has tens of thousands of gun laws on the books now and they don’t stop all the things you claim they will stop.

“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”

It is true. Liberals like Chuck Schumer think that by disarming the population they can get a better handle on crime and control the people. What they fail to see is that the very people they are out to stop do not adhere to their laws, which is why they are called criminals. That’s C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S. As Rush says, “For those in Rio Linda” that means they are guilty of a crime, which means they violate the law. They disregard it. They oppose the law. The law simply defines who the criminals are and in this case, with this amendment, people, such as myself, who would seek to purchase a magazine for their Glock, or 1911 or AR-15 that would have more than 10 rounds, would become a criminal. See how that works?

“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can come together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”

OK, there are a lot of ‘maybes’ and ‘mights’ in Schumer’s statements here. “Mights” and “Maybes” are what the left always use to try and push their agenda. There is never a definitive “this will work and here’s how.”This kind of argument is emotional, not logical. The only way this will “make the country a better place” is for people like Charles Schumer to stay out of the gun marketplace and allow Americans the ability to purchase a weapon of choice for whatever they intend to use it for, whether it is hunting or sport shooting or self defense.

While Schumer also decried assault weapons and said that average Americans didn’t need such a weapon to go hunting or protect themselves, he is not to determine such things. Tell that to the victims of the tyrannical government under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno that brought bloodshed in both Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge for no real reason or threat. Americans should be able to purchase whatever weapons are on the market. Laws are in place to make sure that legal transactions are checked thoroughly. Those criminals that are intent on getting high capacity magazines are going to do it despite Schumer and the Democrats passing a million laws and the law-abiding citizens are the ones that will pay for their stupidity.

This bill is set to be voted on next week.


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

Poll: 2nd Amendment

Attorney General Holder says, "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS."


TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS IT ON.

Guess they were not happy with the poll results the first time, so USA today is running another one...Vote now...

Attorney General Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. Then pass the link on to all the pro-Constitution folks you know. Hopefully the results will be published later this month.

Click to vote:    USA TODAY POLL

Please forward to ALL of your friends