by Thomas Sowell
Amid all the heated, emotional advocacy of gun control, have you ever heard even one person present convincing hard evidence that tighter gun control laws have in fact reduced murders?
Think about all the states, communities within states, as well as foreign countries, that have either tight gun control laws or loose or non-existent gun control laws. With so many variations and so many sources of evidence available, surely there would be some compelling evidence somewhere if tighter gun control laws actually reduced the murder rate.
And if tighter gun control laws don’t actually reduce the murder rate, then why are we being stampeded toward such laws after every shooting that gets media attention?
Have the media outlets that you follow ever even mentioned that some studies have produced evidence that murder rates tend to be higher in places with tight gun control laws?
The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws.
In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm). But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric.
What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter.
The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves can cost far more lives than are lost in the shooting episodes that the media publicize. The lives saved by guns are no less precious, just because the media pay no attention to them.
Many people who have never fired a gun in their lives, and never faced life-threatening dangers, nevertheless feel qualified to impose legal restrictions that can be fatal to others. And politicians eager to “do something” that gets them publicity know that the votes of the ignorant and the gullible are still votes.
Virtually nothing that is being proposed in current gun control legislation is likely to reduce murder rates.
Restricting the magazine capacity available to law-abiding citizens will not restrict the magazine capacity of people who are not law-abiding citizens. Such restrictions just mean that the law-abiding citizen is likely to run out of ammunition first.
Someone would have to be an incredible sharpshooter to fend off three home invaders with just seven shots at moving targets. But seven is the magic number of bullets allowed in a magazine under New York State’s new gun control laPeople who support such laws seem to blithely assume that they are limiting the damage that can be done by criminals or the mentally ill – as if criminals or mad men care about such laws.
Banning so-called “assault weapons” is a farce, as well as a fraud, because there is no concrete definition of an assault weapon. That is why so many guns have to be specified by name in such bans – and the ones specified to be banned are typically no more dangerous than others that are not specified.
Some people may think that “assault weapons” means automatic weapons. But automatic weapons were banned decades ago. Banning ugly-looking “assault weapons” may have aesthetic benefits, but it does not reduce the dangers to human life in the slightest. You are just as dead when killed by a very plain-looking gun.
One of the dangerous inconsistencies of many, if not most, gun control crusaders is that those who are most zealous to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are often not nearly as concerned about keeping violent criminals behind bars.
Leniency toward criminals has long been part of the pattern of gun control zealots on both sides of the Atlantic. When the insatiable desire to crack down on law-abiding citizens with guns is combined with an attitude of leniency toward criminals, it can hardly be surprising when tighter gun control laws are accompanied by rising rates of crime, including murders.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif. He is the author of 28 books, including "Dismantling America" and "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy."
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Showing posts with label Gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun control. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
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
.
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
.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
'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
.
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
.
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
.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
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.”
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
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.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Gun Rights Groups Cheer NRA’s Obama Pushback
by Melanie Gray (NewsMax)
Gun rights groups are cheering the National Rifle Association for pushing back against President Barack Obama's negative connotation of the word "absolutism" in his inaugural address.
NRA chief Wayne LaPierre went on the attack Tuesday before a crowd of supporters, accusing Obama of trying to take away citizens' constitutional right to own and bear firearms.
"Absolutes do exist, words do have specific meaning in language and in law," LaPierre told members of the Weatherby Foundation, a hunting and wildlife conservation non-profit.
According to Chris Knox, communications director for the Firearms Coalition, LaPierre delivered the right message in the right way.
"There are absolutes and I have no problem with absolutism," Knox told Newsmax. "As soon as you start shading the Second Amendment, you start shading all of them."
Knox was particularly pleased with LaPierre's tough talk, especially since the coalition has been less than happy at times with the NRA's positions.
As an example, Knox pointed to the NRA's endorsement of a 1984 ban on armor-piercing "cop-killer" bullets.
"In the current fight, I'm very proud of the NRA," he said. "They're saying the right things and in an effective way."
In his inaugural speech Monday, Obama warned that Americans shouldn't "mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate."
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms sees LaPierre as simply giving voice to gun rights advocates.
"Wayne LaPierre has a right to say what's on his mind. I would hardly try to put words in Wayne's mouth," said communications director Dave Workman. "He expressed an opinion that I'm sure many hold."
Obama's address was what Workman described to Newsmax as "pretty boilerplate stuff."
"Mr. Obama said what he said. He raised quite a few eyebrows across different groups — not just the firearms groups," Workman said.
The Second Amendment Foundation doesn't comment on NRA positions because it focuses on legal and educational issues — not legislation and policy. The foundation's Phil Watson, however, wasn't surprised by the president's remarks because they mirror his record on guns, dating from his years as an Illinois state legislator.
"You have to take major political figures by not just what they say on television but by what they say and do over their careers," said Watson, who is SAF's special projects director and executive director of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights.
"Go back to Obama's past," Watson added. "He has always been a pretty anti-Second Amendment politician."
Last week, the president proposed both legislative measures and executive actions on firearms in response to last month's mass shooting at a Connecticut grade school left 20 children and six adults dead.
"As far as his new push on gun control legislation," Watson said of Obama, "it's really the same old push. He was sponsoring bills in the late 90s to curtail Second Amendment rights."
A spokesman for Gun Owners of America supports the NRA's hard-line approach.
"The media, liberal and conservative, have been right in their analysis of the president's inaugural address. It was a defense of liberal principle — implicitly gun control, said Michael Hammond, the group's legislative counsel.
"We see it as call to war," he told Newsmax, "and we're ready to wage that war."
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Gun rights groups are cheering the National Rifle Association for pushing back against President Barack Obama's negative connotation of the word "absolutism" in his inaugural address.
NRA chief Wayne LaPierre went on the attack Tuesday before a crowd of supporters, accusing Obama of trying to take away citizens' constitutional right to own and bear firearms.
"Absolutes do exist, words do have specific meaning in language and in law," LaPierre told members of the Weatherby Foundation, a hunting and wildlife conservation non-profit.
According to Chris Knox, communications director for the Firearms Coalition, LaPierre delivered the right message in the right way.
"There are absolutes and I have no problem with absolutism," Knox told Newsmax. "As soon as you start shading the Second Amendment, you start shading all of them."
Knox was particularly pleased with LaPierre's tough talk, especially since the coalition has been less than happy at times with the NRA's positions.
As an example, Knox pointed to the NRA's endorsement of a 1984 ban on armor-piercing "cop-killer" bullets.
"In the current fight, I'm very proud of the NRA," he said. "They're saying the right things and in an effective way."
In his inaugural speech Monday, Obama warned that Americans shouldn't "mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate."
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms sees LaPierre as simply giving voice to gun rights advocates.
"Wayne LaPierre has a right to say what's on his mind. I would hardly try to put words in Wayne's mouth," said communications director Dave Workman. "He expressed an opinion that I'm sure many hold."
Obama's address was what Workman described to Newsmax as "pretty boilerplate stuff."
"Mr. Obama said what he said. He raised quite a few eyebrows across different groups — not just the firearms groups," Workman said.
The Second Amendment Foundation doesn't comment on NRA positions because it focuses on legal and educational issues — not legislation and policy. The foundation's Phil Watson, however, wasn't surprised by the president's remarks because they mirror his record on guns, dating from his years as an Illinois state legislator.
"You have to take major political figures by not just what they say on television but by what they say and do over their careers," said Watson, who is SAF's special projects director and executive director of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights.
"Go back to Obama's past," Watson added. "He has always been a pretty anti-Second Amendment politician."
Last week, the president proposed both legislative measures and executive actions on firearms in response to last month's mass shooting at a Connecticut grade school left 20 children and six adults dead.
"As far as his new push on gun control legislation," Watson said of Obama, "it's really the same old push. He was sponsoring bills in the late 90s to curtail Second Amendment rights."
A spokesman for Gun Owners of America supports the NRA's hard-line approach.
"The media, liberal and conservative, have been right in their analysis of the president's inaugural address. It was a defense of liberal principle — implicitly gun control, said Michael Hammond, the group's legislative counsel.
"We see it as call to war," he told Newsmax, "and we're ready to wage that war."
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
It Is Not About Crime Control!
The mantra of the Obama administration has been, “Never let a crisis go to waste!”
The Newtown massacre is no exception!
When word of the shooting reached Washington, sources tell me, that there were high-fives and cheers among White House and Justice Staffers. One was heard to comment, “This is far better than ‘Fast and Furious’.” That person was referring to the Administrations failed attempt at gleaning public support for ‘gun-control’ by supplying Mexican crime lords with firearms sold in the U.S.
We could make a long listing of data base supported facts like-
Australia and Great Briton, both of which have very strict gun laws, have a violent crime rate is at least twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.; or that murders have greatly diminished in Washington D.C., were gun restrictions have been reduced, while Chicago which has a total ban on handguns experienced 500 murders in 2012 alone. And the list goes on………
To any logical thinker the facts are over whelming that “more guns equal less crime”.
But such facts are not of any interest to those that want to ban/register/confiscate your firearms.
The truth is that the Left does not care whether-or-not disarming American citizens has any effect on crimes. It is not crime that they are seeking to end.
What the gun grabber’s really want is a disarmed American citizenry. The U.S. has in just a few short years, been transformed from a constitutionally defined Representative Republic into a Socialist state of soft tyranny with little or no regard for the Constitution. It is not by accident that the Administration and their propaganda machine (ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc.) refer to us a “the workers”. If the Administration has their way, we will soon have no Constitution and be well on our way to a hard Soviet form of tyranny.
As it stands right now, the only thing in their way is more than 100 million armed citizens.
If you think that it can’t happen here, read the histories of all the other nations where it could not happen. Or here at home look at how the EPA has overridden Congress on Energy and carbon emissions, how Obama operates without a budget, spends monies that have not been approved by Congress, is unilaterally dismantling our Nuclear Deterrent, and has given billions of dollars to his cronies.
It is not the guns that the Administration wants to control, it is you!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
The Newtown massacre is no exception!
When word of the shooting reached Washington, sources tell me, that there were high-fives and cheers among White House and Justice Staffers. One was heard to comment, “This is far better than ‘Fast and Furious’.” That person was referring to the Administrations failed attempt at gleaning public support for ‘gun-control’ by supplying Mexican crime lords with firearms sold in the U.S.
We could make a long listing of data base supported facts like-
Australia and Great Briton, both of which have very strict gun laws, have a violent crime rate is at least twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.; or that murders have greatly diminished in Washington D.C., were gun restrictions have been reduced, while Chicago which has a total ban on handguns experienced 500 murders in 2012 alone. And the list goes on………
To any logical thinker the facts are over whelming that “more guns equal less crime”.
But such facts are not of any interest to those that want to ban/register/confiscate your firearms.
The truth is that the Left does not care whether-or-not disarming American citizens has any effect on crimes. It is not crime that they are seeking to end.
What the gun grabber’s really want is a disarmed American citizenry. The U.S. has in just a few short years, been transformed from a constitutionally defined Representative Republic into a Socialist state of soft tyranny with little or no regard for the Constitution. It is not by accident that the Administration and their propaganda machine (ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc.) refer to us a “the workers”. If the Administration has their way, we will soon have no Constitution and be well on our way to a hard Soviet form of tyranny.
As it stands right now, the only thing in their way is more than 100 million armed citizens.
If you think that it can’t happen here, read the histories of all the other nations where it could not happen. Or here at home look at how the EPA has overridden Congress on Energy and carbon emissions, how Obama operates without a budget, spends monies that have not been approved by Congress, is unilaterally dismantling our Nuclear Deterrent, and has given billions of dollars to his cronies.
It is not the guns that the Administration wants to control, it is you!
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Sowell: Invincible Ignorance
by Thomas Sowell (12/18/2012)
Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.
But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries-- and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.
Neither guns nor gun control was not the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.
In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s-- after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions-- there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.
Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.
You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem-- including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.
There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.
Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.
But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries-- and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.
Neither guns nor gun control was not the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.
In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s-- after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions-- there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.
Gun control zealots' choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.
You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem-- including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.
There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.
Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
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
.
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
.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
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
.
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
.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Senator Lugar (Rino-IN) attacks Tea Party
“The Tea Party destroyed the chances for a Republican majority in the Senate at the last elections” – Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN)
Lugar further claims that if the Tea Party wants a Republican majority, they will have to support the “Old Elitist” like himself, who have experience at “politics as usual”
Why would the Tea Party want to return the likes of Lugar to the Senate?
Would it be that he supports federal gun control? Or that he voted for the dream act? Or that he votes for huge agriculture support programs, including Ethanol for fuel? Or that he supported Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court? Or that he voted for TARP? Or that he voted to include criticism of sodomy in the definition of a “hate crime.”? These are all reasons to oppose the elestion of Rino's!
The Tea Party goals are not about a Republican majority in either branch of the Congress. The Tea Party’s goal is to elect Congressmen and a President that believes in and obeys the Constitution and will reign in government spending. If a candidate is a true Conservative, The Tea Party will support that candidate, regardless of party affiliation.
When Senator Lugar claims that the Tea Party prevented a Republican majority in the Senate, he is making reference to the fact that the Tea Party supported true Conservatives in opposition to Rino incumbents like himself.
The facts are that a Republican controlled Senate, led my Mitch McConnell and a number of RINO’s will be no different than what we have now.
If the Tea Party movement is to succeed at saving this nation, the “Old Elitists” like Lugar, Rove, the Bush’s and others have to go! "Politics as usual" is what is destroying this nation and what has crippled the Republican Party.
The elections of 2010 have shown that Conservatives win when they stop trying to look like “that other party”.
Let us pray that God still blesses America.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Lugar further claims that if the Tea Party wants a Republican majority, they will have to support the “Old Elitist” like himself, who have experience at “politics as usual”
Why would the Tea Party want to return the likes of Lugar to the Senate?
Would it be that he supports federal gun control? Or that he voted for the dream act? Or that he votes for huge agriculture support programs, including Ethanol for fuel? Or that he supported Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court? Or that he voted for TARP? Or that he voted to include criticism of sodomy in the definition of a “hate crime.”? These are all reasons to oppose the elestion of Rino's!
The Tea Party goals are not about a Republican majority in either branch of the Congress. The Tea Party’s goal is to elect Congressmen and a President that believes in and obeys the Constitution and will reign in government spending. If a candidate is a true Conservative, The Tea Party will support that candidate, regardless of party affiliation.
When Senator Lugar claims that the Tea Party prevented a Republican majority in the Senate, he is making reference to the fact that the Tea Party supported true Conservatives in opposition to Rino incumbents like himself.
The facts are that a Republican controlled Senate, led my Mitch McConnell and a number of RINO’s will be no different than what we have now.
If the Tea Party movement is to succeed at saving this nation, the “Old Elitists” like Lugar, Rove, the Bush’s and others have to go! "Politics as usual" is what is destroying this nation and what has crippled the Republican Party.
The elections of 2010 have shown that Conservatives win when they stop trying to look like “that other party”.
Let us pray that God still blesses America.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
