Tag Archives: second amendment

Who’s the criminal in a home invasion?

800px-WN_america_arrest

Anti-gun liberals have had a field day in the U.K. and the result is increasing crime rates and incidents where the homeowners becomes the accused.

Criminals are going to burgle, assault, rape and murder. Whether they have a gun or not matters not. On the contrary, both the U.K. and Australia have seen an increase in crime as evil-doers seem to prefer an unarmed populace and the law seems to favor the criminal in some cases.

According to a Guardian.co.uk article, home owners who attempt to defend their families and homes have more to worry about from the law than the criminals do.

And although many people tell me they sleep with a baseball bat beside their bed for just such an occasion, a court can view that as an element of premeditation. If the burglar is hurt, it could be you who ends up in the dock.

Even when a U.K. homeowner challenged two burglars inside his home with a legal shotgun, he and his wife spent 3 days in jail and ultimately had to leave their country out of fear.

Many U.S. states have the so-called “Castle-Doctrine” which allows someone to defend their families and property with asymmetric force. That means that if someone breaks into a home, the homeowner can use any and all means to back them out or dispatch them without fear of reprisal from law or civil action – something home invaders in those states are very aware of.

Clearly the U.K. sense of freedom is different than that in America. In the U.S., every infringement upon any right is a slippery slope towards something resembling the U.K. version. In America, the individual holds the power, unless ceded.

Once liberty is ceded to the government, no matter how small, it is nearly impossible to get back. The battle over the proposed gun ban isn’t about a certain gun, bullet or magazine – it’s about avoiding the slippery slope to seeing them all banned or regulated into uselessness. It’s about preventing many of our liberties from facing a similar fate.

The government cannot protect us from criminals and psychos. Giving up some liberty to seek a false security will continue the pattern of an over-reaching government taking more liberties after ever tragedy. At some point, Americans will have to say that here is too far, we go no farther.

If someone busts into your home in the middle of the night armed with clubs and knives, is 911 the only tool you think you need? The police won’t make it in time if all you have to defend yourself, your children and your property is a golf club.

Feinstein releases more information on proposed gun ban bill

Dianne Feinstein assault gun weapons ban

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has been working furiously on new gun ban legislation ever since 2004 when the previous Clinton weapons ban expired.

Dianne Feinstein assault gun weapons ban

Dianne Feinstein assault gun weapons ban

Some information has slowly surfaced about her proposed gun ban bill, and now, the Senator’s office has released a summary including some information that many gun owners should find alarming:

  • Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    • 120 specifically-named firearms;
    • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
    • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

The last paragraph is last for a reason. The Senator knows that registering currently legal firearms could only be desired for one reason: confiscation. A large segment of the American population would never want the government learning what guns they do or don’t have. Look at the outrage in New York when a liberal newspaper released the names and addresses of all gun permit holders in some counties.

Privacy, individual rights, basic human rights – call it what you will. The government has no right to know what we do in our homes unless a crime is committed.

The ATF is not currently informed of the type and serial number of a firearm bought by citizens. The identifying characteristics of the gun are NOT read to the FBI when a background check is performed by a licensed gun dealer. The purpose of the background check is only to insure that the purchaser is legally able to own a firearm – not inform the government of the particular firearm they purchased.

The transfer of the firearm is kept by the individual federal firearms licensee (FFL). Those records are not given to the government unless necessary in an investigation. Requiring that these purchases are registered with the government is unthinkable and eerily equivalent to an invasion of privacy or search without warrant. If I have not committed a crime, there is no probable cause allowing anyone to know what firearms I may or may not have.

Pure and simple, this is unconstitutional – on so many levels.

Meet The Press Anchor Breaks Law To Embarrass NRA With High-Capacity Clip

Adam Lanza's mental illness claimed the lives of innocent school victims
David Gregory attempts to embarrass NRA leader by holding up  high-capacity magazine clip on Meet the Press.

David Gregory attempts to embarrass NRA leader by holding up high-capacity magazine clip on Meet the Press.

Just how important was it for David Gregory, NBC Meet the Press anchor to break a gun law to embarrass NRA on Sunday’s show? It was not enough for Gregory to continue to badger NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre, into submitting to points that a New Assault Weapon Ban would work when the expired ban had not. According to the Washington Post, Wednesday, December 26th, an official investigation has been launched by the D.C. attorney general’s office.

The NBC anchor had to go the extra mile to challenge Wayne LaPierre, with a high-powered magazine clip, knowing full well that it was against the law in Washington D.C. to be in possession of such a clip. So, was it right for Gregory, a longtime Washington journalist, to break the law, when he knew that the Washington D.C. police had denied the display of the gun clip on the air when it was requested? Should Gregory be fined, suspended or fired for going too far in breaking the law in his attempt to neuter the Second Amendment rights of American law abiding citizens?

There is a serious problem that is emerging in the nation when journalists like NBC’s Gregory can decide that they are above the laws which mere mortals in the heartland of the nation must obey.

Was it not enough to bring up points of disagreement with the NRA as it attempted to do, and were summarily dismissed with great professional skill as LaPierre, displayed? When the arguments that the Meet the Press anchor was trying to skewer the NRA were easily deflected, Gregory appeared to become more combative. His continued being more insistent, and even attacking and vilifying the NRA official for not agreeing with the gun control Washington democrats, and headline writers from around the nation.

Instead, LaPierre, calmly and firmly stated his and the concerns of millions of parents around the nation that wanted to see their children arrive and leave safely from their schools. The Meet the Press anchor kept insisting that the NRA leader was wrong, wrong, wrong!

Gregory, appeared visibly shaken by the steadiness of the NRA leader and seemed to decide at that moment that he needed to play the ace, which the police had already said he could not. Gregory picked the high-capacity magazine and held it up.

By shoving the high powered magazine clip in the air with vigorous motion, he appeared to be playing to his audience, because NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre, had seen this type of clip before, and he was undeterred. Now the NBC show anchor was openly and brazenly in violation of a gun law, of laws, that he had hypocritically been referring to as needing more enforcement.

This type of gotcha journalism has a streak of yellow a mile wide, and while the gun control fanatics in the television audience may have been shaking their fists at the television screens in indignation, the D.C. police were probably wondering, what the heck is wrong with this man, who presumes their gun laws he protests against have no meaning.

Well, it should be made clear to Gregory and every other journalist who decides that they cannot run for cover under some argument of free speech, which he may try to raise, in order to escape punishment.

There are definitely a few critical questions, which journalists from other networks, newspapers and the Washington D.C. attorney general’s office should be inquiring about now. For instance, how did Gregory even get his hands on a supposedly illegal gun clip in the first place? Why did he knowingly break the law, when he was notified that he did not have permission to do so…period?

Hopefully, those and other related questions about Gregory’s ill-considered on-air performance will be answered when he appears before a judge in a Washington D.C. court to explain, why he and his network is somehow above the law.

_________________________________________

(Click – let me know what you think)

 

Guns: Freedom or Tyranny?

biden

bidenFollowing the school massacre in Newtown, CN, Joe Biden, chosen by Barack Obama to lead the administration’s effort to stem the gun ‘epidemic’, met with “law enforcement leaders.”

Biden met with Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Obama’s drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, Senior Obama advisers Bruce Reed, Valerie Jarrett, Cecilia Munoz and Kathy Ruemmler also attended.

Biden remarked:

“I’ve worked with some of you for a long, long time.  We’ve worked on everything from cop-killer bullets to types of weapons that should be off the street. That’s what I want to talk to you about today. I want to hear your views, because for anything to get done we’re going to need your advocacy.”

While openly hoping to impose an assault weapons ban, the White House is actively seeking “advocacy” from Holder, Napolitano, Sebelius and Jarrett.

Holder has yet to adequately explain the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, Napolitano has accused Veterans of foreign wars of being national security threats and has yet to secure American borders, Sebelius is actively assailing American liberty through obamacare and Jarrett has never explained her ties to real estate scandals involving convicted felon and Obama fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko or her involvement in recruiting self-identified communist Van Jones as green jobs czar, Saul Alinsky devotee Mark Lloyd as chief diversity officer within the FCC, and wealth redistribution advocate Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar.

Meanwhile Obama was pushing Congress to quickly pass gun control measures, saying:

“A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.  I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner.”

On Sunday’s “Meet The Press,” National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre reiterated his statements made Friday at a Washington DC press conference, when he said armed security in every school is the answer to stopping shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School.National Rifle Association Holds News Conference In Wake Of Newtown School Shooting

LaPierre said:

“If it’s crazy to call for putting police in and securing our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy.  I think the American people think it’s crazy not to do it.”

At Friday’s press conference LaPierre made the statement:

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The United States will descend into bickering between Americans and “progressives” over how to prevent mass murders committed in gun free zones by mentally deranged people acting on their own.  “Progressives” seek to do this by depriving law abiding individuals of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  Americans seek to ensure safety by having armed, right minded, principled individuals capable of ending the violence present and acting before it spirals out of control.

This debate overlooks the point of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

When the Constitution was written, “Militia” meant ordinary citizens capable of banding together to fight threats to their liberty. It did not matter whether the treat was from an external source like an invading army, or internal, such as an over-reaching government.

The framers of the Constitution clearly expressed their views regarding a well-armed citizenry.

thomasjeffersonThomas Jefferson:

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

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

“Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.”

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

George Washington:washington

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”

James Madison:

James_Madison “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”

“progressives” seek to totally ignore the second part of the Second Amendment “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“.   This displays their willful ignorance of history.  Anyone who has studied history knows the first right tyrants abolish is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That the likes of Holder, Napolitano, Sebelius, Jarrett et al, who no longer secretly seek to impose their version of tyranny upon the United States, are now openly insisting that the Second Amendment be revised to suit their fancy should trigger the sound of alarm bells in the mind of every freedom loving American Citizen.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/guns-freedom-or-tyranny/
Revolution is coming.

Reading, Writing, and Marksmanship

books3239-2

What happened last week in Newtown, CT was an absolute tragedy. A deranged gunman killed 26 people including 20 children before cowardly turning the gun on himself. Twenty children’s lives filled with promise and opportunity came to a violent end. When we send our children off to school we never think to ourselves is this the last time I will see my son or daughter alive? No parent ever thinks about that scenario. However it does happen and it did happen once again. It is every parent’s worst nightmare and one that needs to stop.

So while the friends and families of the victims are grieving, they and almost everybody else is asking the 64,000 dollar question. Why did this happen again? Unfortunately this is not the first time this has happened; but it could be the last time if we take the right measures.

From the Jonesboro boys to the Columbine duo to the Virginia Tech Massacre our schools and universities have become favorite targets of deranged gunman. Like fishing in a barrel with dynamite these killers know that elementary schools, high schools, and universities all have one thing in common. They are easy targets. These gunman know that these locations are typically located in gun free zones that present a minimal chance of an armed resistance.

Instead of us focusing on why these things happen we should instead focus on how to prevent them. We may never know the reasons why these lunatics do what they do. We can speculate, we can argue, we can debate. The only people that truly know why are the perpetrators themselves. The problem is most of the time these folks kill themselves and with them their motives for doing what they did.

So let’s focus on the how.

Every time a tragic event such as the Sandy Hook school shooting occurs, the media, the politicians, and the anti gun lobbyists turn on the second amendment. They say guns are the problem and we need to enforce strict gun control laws. The truth is, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is what has and will continue to keep this nation free and safe. There has been countless stories of armed citizens preventing and even stopping crimes from taking place. If you take away the guns from the good guys than the only ones who will have them are the bad guys, and that doesn’t make much sense.

One only needs to study history to see that gun control leads to tyranny, murder, and control of the people. Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all took guns away from their people and as a result murdered and slaughtered millions of unarmed civilians. For more on this read this article: http://www.examiner.com/article/an-armed-society-is-a-polite-society-1

So how do we prevent these school shootings from happening?

The answer is controversial, but necessary. The solution to preventing gun violence in schools is to allow the teachers and school administrators to be armed. If more teachers, professors, and administrators were armed on school grounds it would create an environment of fear rather than opportunity in the minds of these school shooters. They would think twice before trying such a brazen act like storming a school to shoot innocent students.

Some might be reading this and thinking guns in school? Is this guy crazy? Well which is worse a deranged lunatic shooting up an unarmed school or a trained and skilled teacher preventing the deranged gunman from killing their students?

We all heard about the stories of the many heroes from last weeks shooting. There was the story of the teacher who hid her students in the closet before she was killed. There was the principle who tried to stop the gunman, and the person who announced over the loud speaker that there was a gunman on the loose in the school.

Imagine if all three of those heroes were armed. The headlines might have been very different and the outcome far less tragic. Hero teacher saves countless lives by killing gunman. Principle of elementary school shoots and kills armed assailant, prevents another school tragedy. Those headlines sound a lot better than armed gunman kills 26 unarmed people, including twenty children.

Arming teachers alone will not stop school shootings entirely. There will have to be additional measures taken as well. Having surveillance cameras inside the classrooms that show every single possible entry point into the school is also a necessity. Another suggestion would be a requirement for plainclothes officers to be on school grounds during school hours. Yet another suggestion would be to have a silent alarm button like tellers have at the bank that alerts the authorities immediately when there is such a threat.

What happened last week in Connecticut is just another example of why gun free zones are a bad idea. If more people were armed there would be less gun violence, not more. There are numerous other steps we can take to make our schools safer and less prone to random acts of violence. Arming our teachers and school administrators is the first step in that process.
..

Suggested by the author:
Are we still a center right country?
The fiscal cliff could be the country’s cure
How to end the class warfare argument
Amnesty, Card Check on Obama’s wishlist in second term
Obamacare is bad for business and your health

A Gun Owner Struggles with the Newtown Tragedy

800px-Half_Mast_at_Courthouse

“They were babies” echoes in my head as I contemplate my position on gun ownership. A stalwart defender of the right to bear arms, I have been in troubled contemplation these last few days over the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.

The evil committed was and is indefensible, reprehensible.. devil himself kind of thing. Even if Mr. Lanza were so imbalanced, at what point did going after 6 year old children seem like an outlet? My daughter is 7.

I was unable to write a single news story, tweet or facebook post for days. We even had our Christmas party and I could not intelligently address the questions asked by all those who knew me to be an avid hunter, collector, competitor and gun business owner. I just couldn’t talk about it then. I can barely do it now.

I remember reading one of the first articles after the tragedy. The very first reader comment said “It is now time to repeal the second amendment”. I lost my breath. Could any American really believe that their government could never become so all-powerful as to abridge their basic human rights? Could this tragedy be the tipping point where Americans cede there rights in order to feel more safe?

This tragedy against innocents, children, was something no one can get a handle on and it is forcing irrational moves. The attack makes no sense and humanity seeks a God-like solution in the absence of God. That solution for them is government. Our society has nothing left to turn to but a government bent on taking as much power as the people will give it.

Many are calling for a national discussion on firearms restrictions. Throwing out odd comments like “I only put three bullets in my gun when I hunt”, the left is pushing a false narrative to achieve their ultimate goal – total gun control.

Gun ownership isn’t just about hunting. The second amendment wasn’t contemplated so that 236 years later we could hunt deer. Restricting that right limits the threat to future tyrants. How would the revolutionary war have gone if King Henry’s Redcoats had muskets and the colonists had been disallowed the use of current firearms? Our second amendment is about giving the rest of the Constitution the teeth it needs.

Now we watch as our representatives discuss how sharp or how many our teeth may be. Soon they will discuss whether we need teeth at all. I worry that the majority in America are willing to disarm in the false belief that they will then be more secure. Benjamin Franklin knew better when he said “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Killers like Harris, Klebold, Loughner, Holmes and more were going to do what they did. Their souls were dark. All of them Atheists,  some from broken homes, on some sort of psychological medication and unfit for society.

I worry about one of these soulless creatures driving a Toyota through the car pick-up line at my children’s school now. Seemingly, parents, teachers and medical professionals are unable to either diagnose, treat or even identify people with these afflictions.

I am an unassailable champion of individual liberties. Those liberties should extend so far as they do not imperil another’s freedoms. This kind of tragedy brings into question for many where that line lies.

Should Loughner and Lanza have been committed? I believe so. Why weren’t they? Many around them thought they were both “bombs soon to go off” so why wasn’t that the indication that psychological evaluation was necessary? When will our school and medical professionals be better able to identify warning signs?

Mental instability is certainly at the heart of the Newtown murders. There is no other explanation for a 20 year old man killing 6 year old children – none. It is also the cause of the Colorado theater tragedy, Columbine and so much more.

We’ve focused on the methods those men used to kill at every opportunity, but when will we focus on the reasons? Because politics drives so much of what we do these days, I expect we never will. Perhaps because we have been taught that it is impolite or not politically correct to point out that someone might have a mental illness. It is far easier to blame the inanimate object – the weapon.

Had it not been  a rifle, it would have been plowing through the bus line in his mother’s car, a homemade bomb or some other means to accomplish what he had already planned – he was committed to this outcome.

The previous assault weapons ban was in place when Columbine happened. In fact, it had been in place for five years. What thinking American believes that those Godless young men would not have found another way to do what they did no matter what laws had been passed? Once someone reaches the level of conviction that includes their own suicide, there are no deterrents – NONE.

Of course the anti-gun lobby will focus on the gun(s) as the reason for the tragedy. To them, it is totally logical that tragedy is impossible if guns are restricted. If wishes were horses…

Just last week in China a man stabbed 22 kids with a knife at an elementary school. In 2010, 20 children were killed in knife attacks.[2] Those evil men found other means in a society where guns are highly-restricted. The real question should center on why these men feel it necessary to take out their anger on children and how to identify them earlier.

We rarely, if ever, hear about the Americans saved each year by conscientious, gun-owning citizens. Although it is estimated that between 2.5 and 7 million crimes are prevented each year by someone using a gun in defense[1], those stories don’t make headlines – it takes a tragedy to make headlines. How many lives have been saved by gun ownership? How many were saved by a gun owner with a concealed gun permit when he stopped a mass killing from happening in Oregon? That story was successfully buried.

Gun crimes committed by legal gun owners is infinitesimal. Regulating those people more will do nothing and is a shameful way to honor those children murdered by an evil human being. If we are having an honest dialogue about how to prevent tragedies such as Newtown, we have to admit that we cannot legislate a perfect world and focus on identifying and helping troubled young men like Kliebold, Loughner and Lanza – or at a minimum, getting them off the streets before they harm others or themselves.

We seem focused on the manner instead of the intent. There is no law that can be passed that would prevent someone bent on the death of innocents from carrying it out – especially if they are willing to take their own lives in the process. An honest discussion would focus on the murderer and how to identify people like him before more tragedies erupt. If an honest discussion was what everyone at the table actually wanted.

Sources:
[1] Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz*- http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html
[2] Villager slashes 22 kids with knife at elementary school gates in China – http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite

Ban All Guns, But Whatever You Do, Don’t Violate the Violent Criminal’s Right to Commit Evil

stop the gun violence

As a resident of the state of Connecticut, I can state quite categorically that Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States. Despite those laws, the left insists that if  Connecticut imposed stricter bans, Newtown resident Adam Lanza would never have murdered 20 children and seven adults in a mass shooting.

The left continues making that claim, but so far this ideology toward  banning guns has never prevented gun violence or stopped monsters from obtaining guns. Anyone determined to commit violent crimes will purchase guns illegally if guns are banned.

Try telling that to leftists, they believe guns are the problem, the left wants guns put away, not the criminally insane, who seem to have more rights than innocent people who have a right to bear arms.

CNN’s Piers Morgan, who hails from gun free/high crime Britain, is an example of anti-gun leftist ignorance that views guns as the perpetrator, not violent people. Morgan insists gun-free zones prevent gun violence and  argued this flawed view with More Guns, Less Crime author John R. Lott who explained that “gun-free” zones attract those seeking gun violence:

Look at the [Aurora] movie theater one, for example. There were seven movie theaters showing the movie “Batman” movie within a 20 minute drive of where the killer lived. Only one of those banned guns. He [the killer] didn’t go to the movie theater closest to his home. He didn’t go to the movie theater with the largest screen. He went to the one movie theater that banned guns. Now if you look at bans generally…In the U.K. and Jamaica, Ireland, island nations that have banned guns, you can’t find a place where murder rates have actually gone down. They have gone up usually by large amounts.

 

bloody gun

 

 

Morgan’s reply to gun bans not preventing gun crimes is it’s “a load of nonsense,” and “Nobody needs one of these [guns] in their home, end of story.”

The left chooses to view mentally unbalanced people as harmless and guns as mentally unbalanced.

Leftist logic has never, in its progressive history, contributed laws preventing demented monsters from committing cold-blooded murder with guns or other weapons.  Instead, the left, who decided mentally insane should rehabilitate among society, claim: “[I]if all else failed, such horrors could always be attributed to improper implementation of Progressive programs, reflecting ‘not faulty conceptualization but inadequate funding.’”

Inadequate funding is not the problem.  Every violent mass gun spree has been committed by mentally deranged people who methodically plotted violence with intent to murder as many human lives as possible.

The left ignores facts in order to hone in on guns as perpetrators of gun violence.  If the mentally derange rehabilitate by committing violence against human beings, don’t blame their violent actions, blame guns!

 

guns kill people

 

That brings us to Adam Lanza. What if Lanza’s mother never owned a gun? Can anti-gun lobbyists guarantee Lanza would never have found a way to illegally purchase guns?  Can the left promise that people intent on mass murder will never use bombs to blow up schools or other public places? No one can make those promises. Evil does not alert law enforcement prior to the act, giving details to the plans. Violent people plot murder in secret and gun laws do not stop them from carrying out their intentions.

What about Connecticut gun laws?  Connecticut requires that gun owners  have permits to carry pistols in public, otherwise, “No state permit is required for the possession of rifles, shotguns or handguns. A person must be twenty-one years of age to possess a handgun.”  Furthermore, Connecticut enforces strict background checks on everyone registering to purchase guns. Adam Lanza was 20 years-old, he could not register or purchase handguns, so he stole his mother’s guns after murdering her.

Also, Connecticut’s strict gun laws demand:

It is unlawful to possess a handgun by a person who has been convicted of a felony; convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes illegal possession of a controlled substance, negligent homicide, third degree assault, first degree reckless endangerment, second degree unlawful restraint, rioting, or second degree stalking; discharged from custody within the preceding 20 years after acquittal by reason of mental disease or defect; confined by court order for mental illness within the preceding 12 months; subject to a restraining or protective order involving physical force; or an illegal alien. It is unlawful to possess any other firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony.

So far it doesn’t appear that Lanza had a criminal record. But that doesn’t change the fact that every criminal has a first time.

As far as “assault weapons” go, Connecticut  gun laws state

No person shall possess any “assault weapon” unless that person possessed that firearm before October 1, 1993 and received a certificate of possession from the Connecticut State Police prior to July 1994

When registering in this state, Connecticut law demands “The applicant must successfully complete a handgun safety course approved by the commissioner.”

Connecticut forbids gun owners from storing “any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if” an underage teen or child can gain access to the weapon.” The state requires gun owners to keep guns “secured…in a locked container.”

If Nancy Lanza securely stored her guns, firearm laws did not stop her son from acting out in violence.

Moreover, it’s illegal in Connecticut to carry firearms on public, private elementary or secondary school property.  Strict gun laws did not prevent Lanza from entering the school and shooting 27 people.

But it’s not the criminals’ fault. Laws are ignored by violent criminals, whose guns should have told them: “You cannot use me to murder other people, it’s wrong, and I will be forced to take all the blame!”

Facts remains: Evil people will always plot and carry out malevolent deeds. Banning guns, titling guns “assault weapons”, blaming guns for violence and not people,  hasn’t prevented murderous lunatics from obtaining guns. Banning guns in America will never prevent illegal gun possession, it will only lead to crimes against the innocent without rights to bare arms.

Would Gun Control Have Prevented Mass Murders at Connecticut Elementary School

Mother holds young child who escaped murderous rampage of lone gunman, who killed 20 children and six adults at school

Mother holds young child who escaped murderous rampage of lone gunman, who killed 20 children and six adults at school

On Friday, December 14th, 20 innocent children walked into their schoolroom class at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and before noon, Adam Lanza, 20, had gunned them and his mother down, according to Fox News sources. Recently, this horrific scene has been played out far too many times in malls, movie theaters, and at universities. This time, the unthinkable has occurred. The innocence of childhood was stripped away by this lone gunman, and left a town, and a nation in mourning.

Yet, in the midst of this very tragic day, the routine calls for tighter gun control laws have again raised its ugly head. While there is no reported connection to alleged shooter, Adam Lanza and illegal firearms, the calls are spreading, as they did earlier in the week, when another masked gunman entered a Portland, Oregon area mall, and shot and killed two victims.

According to Fox News, a U.S. Justice Department source, indicated that weapons used in the murderous assault, including a .223-caliber rifle, had been legally registered to the shooter’s mother. There is a serious problem in this nation, but with this tragedy and the one on Tuesday in Portland, Oregon, it was not the gun, but the stolen weapons that was the problem.

In a nation where there are over 50 million legal gun owners, there is no clear reason how the outbursts of violence by mentally unstable individuals whose weapon of choice is a gun, can be used as a rationale to curtail constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. The two are not even logically synonymous.

Gun control laws that are not strict enough did not fail these families who are undergoing this very grievous period of mourning for their dead loved ones. What may have failed, even though speculative, is whatever social service system that did not intervene or pay attention to domestic issues that were occurring inside the home of the dead shooter.

The answers to what motivated Adam Lanza, to head into the school where his mother taught and into the very room where she was a teacher and open fire on precious little kids, shows anger that was perhaps motivated by revenge, or some other deep unsettling motive. But a gun control law is not the culprit in this tragic scenario.

How much tighter should the state of Connecticut’s laws be, if the weapons were purportedly registered to the shooter’s mother? The State of Connecticut gun laws specifies in part:
“It is unlawful to possess any other firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony. It is unlawful to possess a handgun if convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes.”

The mother did not appear to be a felon, now was she a convicted delinquent. She was a teacher in an elementary school, who was according to published reports from Fox News, murdered by her own son, who stole the weapons from her home. She was a victim not of a right-wing fringe element. She was murdered by her son.

There is no gun control legislation in America or on Earth that will prevent an unbalanced person from picking up a knife, gun or any other weapon and assaulting or killing another human being. A case in point was O.J. Simpson, who used a knife to murder his estranged wife and her friend. Knives were not outlawed as a result.

Guns are not the problem, and guns do not murder innocents. People who are determined to harm or murder another person is as old as the bible, with Cain murdering his younger brother Abel. One clear solution which atheists and their fellow liberal secular travelers avoid is, bringing God back into the schools, and into the public discourse.

People of faith can and should draw the line in the sand and stand up for a nation that does not allow murderers to get a free pass for their behavior by blaming heinous actions on a gun. Instead examine the failed social system which disarms children of their access to prayer in the schools, and practice of biblical respect and other behavioral principles which guided America’s founders.

The nation should look inward, and truly examine how can each person begin a new narrative, which does not abandon God and Christ by replacing them with material gift giving. The reason for the season is not Santa in a sleigh, but Jesus Christ, the son of God, in a manger.

Whatever set this young man on a dangerous downward spiral, may have been avoided, if he and those around him could have heard and notified authorities to whatever inner turmoil challenge he was facing.

There is no excuse ever for murdering children or any other person. Gun control laws would not have protected society from his inner demons. In fact, by disarming a nation of its constitutional right to protection, its citizens increasingly will become victims of more murderous mayhem, violence and death.

This, America will never permit!

( click to let me know what you think )

Satan’s Off the Hook: Guns are Responsible for Mankind’s Violent Actions

Satan can rest assured, the fall of mankind is not his fault: “The gun made us do it!”  By the way radical leftists react to guns, one would assume that is what the original Biblical translation in Genesis of mankind’s fall states.

Since the 1960’s radical leftists have been assaulting guns with the concocted phrase “assault weapons,” in order to  scare everyone into believing that owning guns automatically leads to violent crimes.

NBC’s Bob Costas used leftist propaganda in an on air tirade to attack guns, which seem to have excessively high levesl of anger. And those bullets! They have a deep desire to poke holes in people!

Human beings are incapable of assaulting others unless they possess mentally disabled guns. After all, “guns kill, not people!”

Please, one  does not need a gun to assault; a baseball bat to the knees will do the job quite well. So I’ve heard.

Bob Costas and the anti-gun crowd refuse to face facts: Had Jovan Belcher not owned a gun, he could have strangled his girlfriend to death, but the left must blame guns so leftists can assault the Second Amendment and individual liberties.

If guns truly are “assault weapons,” and it’s guns that actually kill, then lunatics should never be blamed when they go on a murderous rampage, shooting up a movie theater, right? After all, the gun did it.

 

Facts are facts: In the United States, non-gun related deaths and injuries occur at higher rates than gun injuries and deaths: “Choking and suffocation is the third leading cause of home and community death in the United States.”

Look at the causes of death by accident or murder in America:

Falls: 5,961 deaths
Fires/Burns: 4,833 deaths
Poisonings: 3,402 deaths
Drownings: 1,092 deaths
Suffocations: 823 deaths        
Other: 1,937 deaths
All Causes: 18,408 deaths

 

 

 

“In Japan, around 150 people die from hot water scalding every year.”

Let’s not forget the infamous Connecticut Wood Chipper Murder Case: The husband murdered his wife, without a gun, and dismembered the body so he could put the body parts through a wood chipper to hide the crime.

So Jovan Belcher did not need a gun to kill his girlfriend; he could have poisoned her or pushed her down the stairs, and then stuffed her body into a wood chipper.

Violent people commit violent crimes with their bare hands when they don’t have weapons.

Death-by-sports injuries has high statistics.  According to Sports Illustrated, a high rate of deaths occur in baseball from head injuries caused by fast balls:

 

[N]ine minor leaguers and 111 amateur baseball players as young as eight years old have died as a result of beanings since 1887. More than 90 other players were killed either by pitches that hit other parts of their bodies, usually the chest, or by balls thrown by other fielders.

 

 

Golf has a 78% rate of injuries caused by golf clubs and balls.  That’s not including Tiger Woods’ head and face injuries caused by his club-wielding wife, who assaulted Woods, and his Cadillac Escalade, with his golf club. We can’t blame Mrs. Woods, after all, that golf club carried a lot of pent up anger against its owner.

 

Perhaps we should ban golf. That would force President Obama to go to work. On second thought, let’s keep golf legal!

What about knife related crimes? Gun-banned Great Britain has a high rate of gang related “knife crimes,”  proving gun bans never stop criminals from finding ways to commit violent crimes.

Even lamps can be used as weapons. Remember the infamous Clinton Oval Office Brass Lamp Wars? Hillary Clinton never used a gun to get even with Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky; Hillary assaulted Bill with a lamp-to-the head.

I say we ban Hillary Clinton!

Look how nature assaults human beings.  Snow storms create hazardous roads, causing car accidents, trees fall on cars and houses, killing people, high winds, floods and tsunamis wash away entire towns and islands.

According to the Daily Mirror : “COCONUTS apparently kill around 150 people every year.” Talk about anger. Tropical trees are hurling fruit at tourists!

Should we destroy the tropics?  It’s obvious from the above list that Global Warming is not the problem; Mother Nature is moody.

Next:  Great Britain’s Metro reports:

Falls from trees account for 1,200 cases, while 170 are admitted after falling from cliffs. In total, falls accounted for almost 460,000 hospital admissions from March last year to February this year, up by 18,700 on the previous 12 months.

 

Should we cut down every tree in existence to save us from being hurled from trees that don’t want us climbing them? It’s obvious trees are a threat. As to the problem with cliffs being perpetrators of accidents, we should ban cliffs, that prohibition alone might save America!

 

Furthermore, Metro says:

About 20,000 people each year are admitted to accident and emergency wards in England after falling out of bed, compared with 6,400 who drop from ladders…

 

If our beds are so hell bent on throwing us off them, we should make beds illegal and sleep on floors.

But people fall on slippery floors, hitting their heads, breaking legs or injuring backs? Should we outlaw bare floors in favor of carpeted floors only? Oh wait, carpeting produces dust and mold. Carpets are trying to assault our lungs!

Cars can become assault weapons to drive over philandering husbands. Remember Clara Harris, the dentist who ran over her husband?  Technically, she didn’t kill her husband, the Mercedes did: “Harris insisted the death…[in July 2003] was an accident and that she only wanted to damage the black Lincoln Navigator belonging to her husband’s receptionist turned lover, Gail Bridges.”

It’s not Harris’s fault that her Mercedes drove over her husband instead of smashing the Navigator. Harris was behind the wheel of a possessed car.

Anything can be used as a weapon. Women use handbags to the head, car keys and long finger nails to the eyes, high heels to the feet, as well as head, and knees to the groin to fight off muggers. Should America ban the female gender?  FemiNazis would no doubt support that veto if the ban includes making women grow penises and becoming the men radical feminists are determined to be.

Maybe we should ban frying pans, pipes, crow bars, rope used to lynch, two-by-fours and  hands.  Common sense says one does not need a gun to attack; the list of assault weapons is infinite. But in the mind of leftists,  guns are the only assault weapons. Unless used by terrorists to attack Israel and the West, then it’s a justified demonstration of resistance by freedom fighters.

If guns are banned, guns won’t go away. Criminals will purchase guns the way they always have–illegally. And  innocent citizens will use whatever they must to prevent violent attacks against themselves and loved ones.

Gun bans are just another way to control people, remove individual liberties and the right to protect one’s self and family.

Should NBC fire Bob Costas for 2nd Amendment rights attack during football game

Bob Costas Attacks 2nd Amendment Gun Rights During NBC football game to deny gun owners protection

On Sunday night, NBC sportscaster Bob Costas decided during a Halftime break to tell America that your Second Amendment gun rights should be dialed back if not eliminated. He was reacting to the Saturday morning murder-suicide committed by Jovan Belcher, former linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs. According to police officials, Belcher’s chose a gun to murder his 22-year-old girlfriend Kasandra M. Perkins, in an apparent domestic violence dispute.

Did Costas misuse his position as a sports commentator to decide upon his own, without knowing the factual circumstances of the domestic dispute? Was he legitimate in broadcasting a determination before law enforcement authorities had completed their investigation, of Belcher’s use of a gun to commit both her murder and his suicide? Should he have linked the murders to a condemnation of legal gun owners in 43-55 million households in America?

While the nation grieves for the murders which are devastating for both families and the young 3-month old child of the dead parents, Bob Costas decided to become judge, jury and executioner of the Second Amendment guarantees, by issuing a political verbal assault during the halftime show of the game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Philadelphia Eagles.

There is a line in the sand that legitimate law abiding gun owners must draw and it must be firmly placed and unmovable. The use of the public airwaves to continue the assault against the U.S. Constitution is not something that should be continuously witnessed nor permitted to go unchallenged.

Why didn’t Costas do his homework before he went on the air with his fictional beliefs? Sure, there has been an increase in firearm ownership. In fact, there are approximately 43-55 million households in America with guns, which is about 43 to 50% of US households. Yet, what Costas neglected to mention is that with the increase of legal gun ownership in America, there has been a steady decline of murders due to gun violence. An armed American is a safer American.

Instead, Costas plays upon the fearful images that are fortified in the conscious of the nation, by media imagrey of horrific assault and murders of innocents like Aurora, Colorado’s murder in July. With the attack by shooting suspect James Holmes charged with 24 counts of first-degree murder, liberal gun control advocates targeted the Second Amendment as the convenient villain.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg demanded more detailed gun control measures from both presidential candidates, Obama and Romney. He stated in July, “I can tell you what we do here in New York. The State Legislature passed the toughest gun laws.”

It must be very comforting for families of victims who could not fight back, that with New York State’s stricter gun controls the murder rate has remained close to the current 4.0 and 4.05 per 100,000 as it has for last several years. In New York City, the tough “Stop and Frisk” measures have been attributed by law enforcement as the real solution to the lowering of gun murders in New York City, not tougher gun control laws.

So where does that leave law abiding citizens who continue to be victimized by liberal media pundits, as well as network news and sportscasters who feel compelled to interject personal opinions and nonsensical fabrications and cast them into cement as news?

NBC has a moral duty to either suspend Bob Costas, and any network official that allowed or agreed to let him engage in his on-air gun control rant. They should follow ESPN’s lead , when singer/ entertainer Hank Williams Jr. made a comment on Fox Network’s ‘Fox and Friends’ about Obama and Hitler in October of 2011 they suspended him. William’s nationally famous “Are you “Ready for Football” intro for ESPN football games was pulled from the air by ESPN after the incident.

Hank Williams Jr. did not crawl back with a lame excuse. Instead he stood his ground and left the network. In his personally written apology, Williams stated:
“I have always been very passionate about Politics and Sports and this time it got the Best or Worst of me,” he wrote. The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone.”

Now it is Costas’ turn to show the same type of class and dignity that Williams displayed in standing up for his right to speak and tell America what was at stake on Fox network. Yet, one can tell, from the deafening silence from Costas and NBC regarding a suspension or resignation that the only dignity that exists is in the red blooded conservative veins of the Williams of the nation, who are unafraid and unbroken.

Remember, that Costas’ verbal assault is not the beginning of the attacks against your constitutional right to defend yourself and your family.

The true measure of your reaction will be how you will react when a network announcer informs the nation that the United Nation has just voted to outlaw American gun owners’ rights. Is it then too late to stand up for your constitutional rights that are taken, courtesy of a then U.S. State Department run by Secretary of State Susan Rice and a President Obama, who emphasizes, “We did it because it is the right thing to do?”

What will you then do America?

 

( Click to let me know what you think )

Obama Effort to strip constitutional gun rights may start American Civil War

Obama’s move to sign a United Nations’ Gun Ban Treaty will escalate states’ efforts for seceding from the Union.

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.

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?

( click to let me know what you think )

Fed Check Point in AZ for Ammo

shotgun

This weekend in Southern Arizona a check point was set up by Federal agents. Their mission: to make sure those shooting in the desert area were picking up their spent shells and keeping our desert clean.

As you watch the video note that those interviewed were quite comfortable with this intrusion of privacy. “It’s all for the betterment of society…”

But is it? According to the report the agents were just doing some educational information checks. Yet, they did arrest four people on outstanding warrants. Some may wonder what the real end goal is. There is no doubt many in the Obama administration would prefer that no citizen could own a gun. So,are they just cleaning up the desert or as second amendment advocates might question are they wanting to keep track on who has what guns?

I am reminded of the frog in the skillet metaphor as told in The Story of B: If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out. But if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor, exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death.

Step 1. We’re trying to educate people and get their attention.
Step 2. We’ll ask to see your weapons.
Step 3…

Is the government just trying to help or are we being naive and will our acceptance of these gradual changes will allow us to be ‘boiled to death’?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »