Sep 9, 2010 Political
I am not sure exactly what this meeting is about but anytime liberals have meetings about guns it is not good. The Senate Judiciary Committee is having a meeting entitled “Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process” which is rather vague but when they talk about reform or a regulatory process it cannot be good.
The other concern is the word Commerce is mentioned. Given how Democrats think they can regulate anything by invoking the Commerce Clause it is not a stretch to assume they might be trying to regulate firearms through commerce in a more restrictive way.
We will need to be vigilant and ensure these gun grabbers are not trying to backdoor us before they are thrown to the curb.
We must always be on the lookout because they will never allow us to protect ourselves unless we force them to leave us alone.
This man defended his family and property with a legal AK 47 and he was arrested for firing warning shots into the ground. Why did he shoot? The place he lives has the shot detector technology and he knew if he fired the police would arrive quickly.
Why was it necessary? A gang was congregating and threatening him. If the gun grabbers get their way he would be at the mercy of the gangs.
Which is just about as bad as being at the mercy of the government and its willful disregard of our right to keep and bear arms.
November cannot come soon enough.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 27, 2010 Political
The EPA will consider banning lead ammunition along with lead shot and lead sinkers used for fishing. The EPA is not allowed to regulate ammunition (by statute) and this would seem to be out of its jurisdiction. That does not seem to have hampered the agency from taking up the issue.
The Weekly Standard is asking if the EPA will rule to ban lead ammo and further push voters to remove Democrats from office, particularly in conservative areas where Democrats hold office. This is a valid question given that lead is used by sportsmen and a ban on it will likely double the cost of sports items, particularly ammunition.
The answer here seems to be a simple one. The EPA has no jurisdiction to regulate ammunition so it should not be allowed to regulate the composition of ammunition. The problem is, rules and statutes are seldom followed by government unless those rules or statutes support what it wants to do. Otherwise it ignores them and pushes on with its agenda.
The voters will be sending a very simple message in November and if the EPA does something unlawful and stupid then that message might be sent to a lot more people than Democrats would be comfortable with.
The EPA is typical of a government agency that gets too big and involves itself in things that it ought not to. The problem we face is that these ever expanding agencies are not held accountable for what they do.
We can start that making government accountable by holding the politicians accountable. They make sure things get done the way we want or we bounce them on their rear ends.
November will be a good time to start and we can keep getting rid of the temple monkeys until we are governed by a smaller government that does what we tell it to.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 14, 2009 Political
Looking over stories in the New York Times ( on the basis that it is a good thing to know your enemy), I came across a story that absolutely warmed the cockles of my heart. I understand why not everyone would feel as I do, but this is truly a tale about morality.
They strode into the restaurant supply store in Harlem shortly after 3 p.m. on Thursday, four young men intent on robbery, one with a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, the police said. The place may have looked like an easy mark, a high-cash business with an owner in his 70s, known as a gentle, soft-spoken man.
But Charles Augusto Jr., the 72-year-old proprietor of the Kaplan Brothers Blue Flame Corporation, at 523 West 125th Street, near Amsterdam Avenue, had been robbed several times before, despite the fact that his shop is around the corner from the 26th Precinct station house on West 126th Street.
There were no customers in the store, only Mr. Augusto and two employees, a man and a woman. The police said the invaders announced a holdup, approached the two employees and tried to place plastic handcuffs on them. The male employee, a 35-year-old known in the community as J. B., struggled with the gunman, who then hit him on the head with the pistol.
Yeah- that’s right, another robbery in New York- go figure, right? Four punks, who felt as if this Mr. Augusto Jr. should just hand over his hard- earned money to them, were in for a shock-
Watching it happen, Mr. Augusto, whom neighborhood friends call Gus, rose from a chair 20 to 30 feet away and took out a loaded Winchester 12-gauge pump-action shotgun with a pistol-grip handle. The police said he bought it after a robbery 30 years ago.
Mr. Augusto, who has never been in trouble with the law, fired three blasts in rapid succession, the police said, although Vernon McKenzie, working at an Internet company next door, heard only two booms, loud enough to send him rushing to a window, where he heard someone shout: “You’re dead! You’re dead!”
The first shot took down the gunman at the front. He died almost immediately, according to the police, who said he was 29 and had been arrested for gun possession in Queens last year and was the nephew of a police officer.
Mr. Augusto’s other two blasts hit all three accomplices, who stumbled out the door, bleeding.
Oooh- Snap! that’s a big error on the part of the robbers- and they got what they deserved- I know that this is traumatic for this older man, because it is traumatic to shoot anyone, even if they had it coming.
There was no way that Mr. Augusto could have known if these robbers would leave them alive after the robbery, and he did exactly the right thing, since, as I have pointed out before, the Police are a reactive force, generally brought in after the fact. They solve crimes, but in reality, rarely prevent them, although they surely would love to.
The reaction of the relatives of these robbers was striking-
Outside the emergency room entrance of the hospital, at 113th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, relatives and friends of the dead and wounded men screamed and wailed in anguish as word of what had happened spread.
“No! No!” a woman cried. “They said he just died!”
Another crying woman, surrounded by family members, heard one of her relatives had been shot trying to rob a store.
“Oh my God!” she wailed. “Why would they want to rob a store?” She started to scream: “Damn! Why? Why would he go to a family store? He got money!” She slumped against the wall and began to pray.
Later, a man ran into the emergency room and came out screaming, “Oh, God!” He held his head in his hands and sat at the curb, apparently devastated.
A youth about 16, crying and pacing at the emergency room entrance, slammed his fist into a yellow pole.
Where were these people in providing a moral compass to guide these young mens’ behavior? It clearly wasn’t an economic thing, judging from the comments of the relatives, so why? The only answer I can come up with is weak morals. A person cannot be led by the nose if he or she has the moral clarity to resist. These young men did not, and now two are dead, and two are in the hospital, and the short story line is, “That’s Justice.”
Unfortunately, this occurred in New York, so Mr. Augusto does not get off with a medal, but with a citation-
Paul J. Browne, chief spokesman for the Police Department, said that Mr. Augusto had not been arrested or charged. He was being treated like a witness and was still being questioned early Friday at the station house. It was unclear if the shotgun was registered, but Mr. Browne said, “There is a lower threshold for owning a shotgun in the city, a permit as opposed to a license.”
A law enforcement official said that the district attorney was considering a possible misdemeanor weapons charge against Mr. Augusto, indicating that he did not have a permit for the shotgun.
No good deed goes unpunished, as they say, especially in New York. This man not only thwarted a robbery (a crime in itself), but possibly saved not only his own life, but those of his employees. For that, he should be given a medal.
There need to be more Mr. Augustos.
Jul 28, 2009 Political
The right to keep and bear arms.
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.
Seems very simple, doesn’t it? Two sentences, all to the point, no extra words to confuse the meaning- and yet so many people choose to willfully ignore the plain meaning in this simple and basic right that we as Americans are privileged to have.
Simply put, we, as citizens of the United States, have the right to own firearms, both to protect our families and our country. Oh, I know that nowadays if you volunteer to join our armed forces, you are issued government- approved and tested firearms, if for no other reason that ammunition is then interchangeable in a combat situation. That is logical.
But the other part of this right is about protection. True, we have the police, and when the police are on the scene, it is the right thing to allow the police to do their job. However, it is also true that, as good as the police try to be, they are still mainly a reactive force, meaning that in a majority of cases, the police cannot pre-emptively defuse a potential situation. They have to have an actual crime take place before they can do something.
By then, if it is a rape or murder, the damage has already been done. If it is a car jacking, the criminal has already fled with your $30,000 or more car- not a thing that enhances your day, not to mention there is a good possibility that you have been shot or abducted in the car jacking process.
This is why I have a CCL, (concealed carry license)- I carry when I leave home, because I would rather shoot than be shot, and these criminals need to know that there can be consequences for their behavior, and these consequences can be fatal.
Well, my rights have become a little narrower with the defeat of the CCL bill that would have allowed people such as myself to carry my firearm from state to state, within the laws of that state.
Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, the legislation would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they “have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence” they “are entitled to do so.” It was considered one of the most far-reaching federal efforts ever proposed to expand gun-permitting laws.
“This carefully tailored amendment will ensure that a state’s border is not a limit to an individual’s fundamental right and will allow law-abiding individuals to travel without complication throughout the 48 states that already permit some form of conceal and carry,” Thune said during Wednesday’s sometimes contentious debate.
In an extremely ironic twist, the opponents of this bill cited State’s Rights, a provision of the Constitution that they normally feel more comfortable ignoring, as if State’s Rights were the red- headed stepchild of the United States, as the reason they worked to defeat this bill.
In reality, it was more opposition to the Second Amendment than support of the Tenth that these Liberals were actually working towards. I can, however, see their flawed logic, but the true reality is that there should be uniformity among this part of the Second Amendment, so that people who do interstate commerce, such as truckers, jewelry salesmen, and others can have a consistent level of protection.
It is rather humorous that these Liberal Socialists want to federalize everything except when it suits their agenda to all of a sudden “discover” the Tenth Amendment.
In a rare instance of their trumpeting states’ rights, the liberal Democrats noted that 36 states have specific laws regarding these gun permits. Some bar conceal-carry permits for alcohol abusers and prohibit misdemeanor criminals from carrying weapons.
“The states already have laws. Under the Thune amendment, those laws could be ignored. So if the Thune amendment becomes law, people who are currently prohibited from carrying concealed guns in those 36 states are free to do so. It is absurd that we are considering this,” said Durbin, the majority whip.
Actually, Dick Durbin has it wrong- the people who have been barred from getting licenses in their states would continue to be denied, but those people who have legitimate licenses would be able to have a continuity of legality within these states. This is a good thing. I believe that the people at Virginia Tech, or any other shooting in public, might have been well served by a citizen who was lawfully carrying a firearm at the time. Perhaps not so many people would have died.
I live by the axiom, “It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.” You cannot realistically ask a criminal to wait until you go buy a firearm in order to make the fight more equal. The criminal is counting on things being unequal, in his favor, so it really is up to you to alter the situation more in your favor. After all, it is your life, and that of your family’s that lies in the balance.
I urge everyone who feels the need, to buy their own firearm, and take lessons in correct handling of that specific weapon (and have anyone who might handle this weapon do the same), then, if you feel the need to get a CCL, do so. I have the suspicion that if everyone were allowed to carry a weapon, perhaps some of the less stupid criminals might not try to rob, rape, or murder so many people if they thought that perhaps they might not survive the attempt.
I know that when I leave my house, I make sure all my rights are with me. You should too.
Barack Obama has the same problem most liberals do when it comes to the Second Amendment and that problem is, they don’t support it. When they are in office and not running for election or reelection they all talk tough on gun control. They want to remove guns from the streets because that will end violence, blah, blah. They continue with this even though cities with the toughest gun control laws still have huge numbers of people killed by guns and in places where LAW ABIDING citizens are allowed to carry guns, crimes are lower. Of course, when they are running for office they act like proud supporters of the Second Amendment and that it is a right and they would not take guns. Some of them dress up like Elmer Fudd and pretend they actually support gun ownership ala John Kerry. Barry Obama finds himself in a similar spot because he has always supported strict gun control measures. He supports Chicago’s gun ban and he supported the unconstitutional gun ban in DC (both are unconstitutional but only the DC ban has been ruled on). Barry is having trouble convincing the people that he is one of them and that he believes in gun ownership:
A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’ Wall Street Journal
Conservatives don’t have to prove they will uphold the Second Amendment because their record is clear on the issue. The problem is that Liberals can’t seem to understand that the Second is as important as any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and without it, the others would likely be in peril. Obama has opposed gun ownership and he did so in his own handwriting on a candidate survey. He now says he believes the Second is an individual right (which it is and always has been) and that we can uphold the Second by allowing cities to put restrictions in place for public safety.
Have we ever heard a politician discuss restrictions on any other right enumerated in the Constitution? Suppose Senator Obama or any other Liberal wanted to allow free expression of religion except that cities could put limits in place for public safety? How about no Islamic Mosques in city limits because the call to prayer disturbs non Muslims? How about no Mosques or Synagogues in city limits because Muslims hate Jews? Maybe we could have the city shut down certain websites from reaching the city limits or certain newspapers because the comments contain hate filled speech. Imagine if a really Conservative city banned any liberal media from being sold there, in the interest of safety. Words can incite hatred and violence, better be careful.
Suppose people like Obama felt that that the Fourth Amendment is an individual right against unlawful search and seizure but that cities with high crime rates and other social problems had a right to regulate that for public safety. Maybe they could say that all cars in a certain high violence area would be stopped and searched for weapons and that homes in the area would be randomly searched for meth labs, guns and other illegal items, all in the name of public safety. Why is it that the Second Amendment is treated differently than the others?
Obama does not support the Second Amendment. His position is now more to the center because he is in the general election and he needed to tact to the middle in order to gain voters. One other telling item is that Obama selected Biden as his running mate. Biden is known as Mr. Gun Control. Biden claims to have written the assault weapons ban (which bans only law abiding citizens from having them) and has given a rating of F by the NRA. Joe Biden thinks that if you own a weapon and you consider it your “baby” you need your head examined. He believes in strict gun control and has voted against the Second Amendment so how does this square for Obama as a believer in gun rights?
Obama saw in the hand picked audience that he had skeptics with regard to his position on gun control. Saracuda hit him hard on how he spoke to people in San Francisco compared to how he spoke to those who cling to guns and religion in Pennsylvania and the rest of Middle America. It seems she was very accurate on this issue and Obama is finding it out. It is not reassuring that he said even if he wanted to he did not have the votes in Congress. Keep in mind that the Democrats are expecting to pick up enough seats to rubber stamp anything Obama wants so he WILL have enough votes, if all goes according to their plan. I also think it is funny to see the whine which basically said; C’mon, this is not really a reason to not vote for me, is it?
Your damn right it is! If we cannot trust a politician to uphold all of our rights then it is reason not to vote for him. If you had held the beliefs in my examples above there would be plenty of people who would think it was good reason not to vote for you. As a matter of fact, Obama and his running mate have both stated that they would pursue criminal charges against George Bush if they get elected (Biden said that was a lie and wanted to know where people got the idea. It was the video of him saying it, I think). These alleged crimes include violations of the Constitution. Ignoring the Second Amendment is a violation of the Constitution. People are not convinced that Obama believes in the rights of gun owners and they have good reason to be concerned. Obama has lied about his positions, here they are.
Barack Obama is having trouble with Middle America and part of the reason is his stance on Second Amendment rights. The left expects gun control and one of the things they view as negative about Palin is her lifetime membership in the NRA. Obama is beholden to the left and he will try to limit gun ownership.
The left is out of touch and Obama demonstrated that with the position that we could have a right and regulate it with control for some but not for others (which is what he really means). Criminals will not follow any kind of ban. They drank during prohibition, they use drugs that are illegal and criminals use guns everyday. They will not obey the law.
Why should anyone believe what Obama says anyway? When he won election to the US Senate he said he was not qualified to be President. Nothing has changed since then but now he is??
Believing that gun control will stop criminals from using guns is like believing that ethics reform will keep members of Congress from being unethical.