2nd Amendment Rights
Alright, here we go, they’re trying to take our guns away!! As usual, Obama is trying to keep it hush-hush and telling people that he’s not for gun control when in reality the opposite is true. How many times can Obama outright lie to people before they take notice? We cannot let them take away our right to keep and bear arms – it would be the beginning of the end…
Bill HR45 – Gun Control Bill
HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009
Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.
Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because it is flying under the radar.
To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
.It is registered
.You are fingerprinted
.You supply a current Driver’s License
.You supply your Social Security #
.You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
.Each update – change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
.There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.
They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
If you think this is a joke – go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family – pass this along.
This is just a “termite” approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense – chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it. (Did Obama promise transparency? It seems his motives are more and more transparent while his methods are hidden in back rooms.)
This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.
If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
So this teacher asked the students to discuss a “relevant issue in the media,” but when the student presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns, she called the police on him???? Free speech continues to die a slow, agonizing death and our public universities are the ones putting it to death!!!
Professor Takes Heat for Calling Cops on Student who Discussed Guns in Class
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
By Maxim Lott
A professor in Connecticut reported one of her students to the police after he gave a class presentation on why students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Now, free speech activists say the professor’s actions are what really need to be investigated.
Last October, John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a “relevant issue in the media,” and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns.
That night, police called Wahlberg, a 23-year-old senior, and asked him to come to the station. When he arrived, they they read off a list of firearms that were registered in his name and asked where he kept them. Guns are strictly prohibited on the CCSU campus and residence halls, but Wahlberg says he lives 20 miles off-campus and keeps his gun collection locked up in a safe. No further action was taken by police or administrators.
“I don’t think that Professor Anderson was justified in calling the CCSU police over a clearly non-threatening matter,” Wahlberg told The Recorder, the CCSU student newspaper that first reported the story. “Although the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable, there was no need to label me as a threat.”
Wahlberg declined to comment further to FOXNews.com, saying he did not want more media attention.
According to The Recorder, Anderson cited safety as her reason for calling the police.
“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well-being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she told The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”
Anderson did not respond to calls from FOXNews.com. Campus police forwarded requests to university spokesman Mark McLaughlin, who declined to comment, citing Wahlberg’s privacy.
Robert Shibley, vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), said Anderson’s actions appeared to be out of line.
“If all he did was discuss reasons for allowing guns on campus, it seems a bit much to call the police and grill him about it,” Shibley said. “If you go after students for just discussing an idea, that goes against everything a university is supposed to stand for.”
Shibley said FIRE has seen many more cases of hair-trigger responses by administrators over anything gun-related since the Virginia Tech shooting.
In 2007, Shibley noted, a student at Hamline University in Minnesota was suspended after writing a letter to an administrator arguing that carrying concealed weapons on campus may help prevent tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech. The student was allowed to return only after undergoing a psychological evaluation, he said.
Shibley also cited an incident at Colorado College last year in which campus administrators denounced a flyer as “threatening and demeaning content” because it mentioned guns. He said the students who produced the flyer were found guilty of violating the school’s violence policy, which was added to their school records.
“It is, of course, important that administrators identify real threats to students,” Shibley said. “But they need to use logic to discern whether a threat is real.”
But Jerold Duquette, an associate professor of political science at CCSU who sits on the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, say the Wahlberg case is not so clear-cut.
“This is a situation where both sides can come up with a reasonable explanation,” Duquette said.
“[Wahlberg] certainly has a reason to complain, since he didn’t do anything directly threatening. But I wouldn’t say the administration has a reason to sanction or punish the professor or the police…. I don’t know if I would have done anything differently in the situation.”
Katie Kasprzak, a spokeswoman for the group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, suggested that the professor called the police because she disagreed with Wahlberg’s political views.
“Critics of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus argue that colleges and universities are dedicated to the free flow of ideas,” she said. “Yet when a student gives a class presentation on a relevant issue in the media, it is acceptable to label the student as a threat? The only threat posed was a threat to the professor’s personal beliefs.”
Duquette said there was no evidence to support that.
“I think a lot of people see this as a liberal professor going after a student because he likes guns. I don’t know if that’s the case,” Duquette said, adding that more would need to be known about the incident.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
I don’t know who wrote this, but I like it and I agree!!!
PEOPLE ASK WHY I CARRY A GUN
Why I Carry a Gun
My old grandpa said to me son,’ there comes a time in every mans life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to take an a$$ whoopin’.
I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I do n’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an a$$ whoopin’.
Author unknown (but obviously brilliant)Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
YES!!!!! Finally we have a little bit of good news coming from the Supreme court!
Supremes: Individuals have right to bear arms
Divided court strikes down D.C. handgun ban in 1st conclusive 2nd Amendment interpretation
Posted: June 26, 2008
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
In its first conclusive interpretation of the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, affirming an individual right to own firearms and not merely a right for states to form armed militias.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
Scalia said the ruling should not “cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, called the decision “a great moment in American history.”
“I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom,” he said.
LaPierre told Fox News the NRA is filing lawsuits in Chicago, San Francisco and other cities, vowing the organization “will not rest until individuals everywhere have this freedom.”
In a statement, he said the decision “vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting.”
“Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right,” LaPierre said. “The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it. The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American constitutional law.”
The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: “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.”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the White House is “pleased by the decision upholding Americans’ right to bear arms.”
(Story continues below)
The District’s law barred handgun ownership by residents who did not own one before the law was enacted in 1976.
The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, came to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the ban unconstitutional, reversing a U.S. District Court decision.
Security guard Dick A. Heller, 66, was one of six District residents who filed the challenge to the ban. The others were determined by the appeals court to not have legal standing.
The District required residents who owned handguns or rifles before the 1976 ban took effect to keep the weapons in their homes. Any legal firearms had to be kept unloaded and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled.
McCain: Gun ownership ‘sacred’
Sen. John McCain called the decision a “landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States.”
The Republican presumptive presidential nominee signed a friend-of-the-court brief in the D.C. case affirming his belief the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms.
He crticized his Democratic Party rival, Sen. Barack Obama, for refusing to sign the brief.
“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right – sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,” McCain said.
Obama has sidestepped the issue. In an April debate, he was asked by ABC News’ Charlie Gibson if he considered the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.
“Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence,” Obama said.
The Illinois senator has said the Second Amendment provides an individual right but insists it is not absolute. The Constitution, he has contended, does not bar local governments from enacting “common sense laws.”
ABC News reports the Obama campaign is disavowing an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Obama as believing the D.C. ban was constitutional.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the statement to the paper was inaccurate, because the senator has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law violates the Second Amendment.
The Nov. 20 Tribune story quoted the aide saying Obama “believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”
Once again Doug Giles has delivered an article that I find to be fantastic and with which I totally agree!!!
Bitter, Clingy Gun Owners of America
By Doug Giles
Saturday, April 26, 2008
I’m a bitter/clingy gun owner-and I’m happy about it!
Obama, the great healer of America, the hope of our nation, came out last week and whizzed on millions of Christians and firearm fans calling us bitter Cling-Ons to religion and guns. I, personally, wasn’t insulted because I really like God and my rifles, and I make a good living off my rage.
Yes, when I heard BHO blast us in front of his sassy San Fran crowd and attempt to put a dig into us plebeians, I thought, finally, this man has spoken the truth, unlike all the rest of the stercore tuari he’s been spewing about his dear pastor, his home boy, Bill Ayers, and his audacity of hype.
Matter of fact, I think he’s rather spot on describing me because I’m one PO’ed Christian who owns guns-nice guns and very many guns. And, yes, I’m rather clingy with them. I’m not alone either, as there are millions of other brothers, from other mothers, who really, really are endeared to our God-given right to self defense and firearm fun. Can I hear a big amen, my brothers?
Yes, Barack, you may rightly call millions of us men “clingy” because the truth is, when the workday is done, boys just wanna have guns: guns to hunt with, guns to look at, guns for personal defense and a few zany lead spewers should al-Qaeda, or the anti-Christ, or any foreign or domestic threat, or Godzilla ever attack America, we, the clingy ones, will be ready to rock in a hard place, guaranteed.
Here are eight factoids I found that also cause backwards little old me to clutch my wood and metal friend called the gun:
1. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
2. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
3. Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
4. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
5. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
8. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
As the old adage goes: “With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.” Therefore, I’ll cling to my gun because I really enjoy being a free bird and truly hate kissing someone else’s backside, but that’s just me.
So, Barack, since you threw that supposed insult at me and millions of other gun-needy Americans, I am going to react by doing the five following things:
1. I am going to walk up to my gun cabinet and hug and kiss all of my rifles and shotguns and tell them they are really good guns no matter what any far-left liberal lug nut says about them.
2. Since I just finished my new book, How to Keep Thugs and Bad Boys Away from Daddy’s Little Girl (Thomas Nelson, December 2008), I need a break. Let’s see, what can I do? I know, I just got a custom Ruger #1 elephant gun in 450/400 Nitro Express. I think I’ll go out and celebrate with it in the South Florida swamps next weekend. Clingy me is going to baptize it in wild boar blood as a sort of a cordite warm-up pitch before I go bear hunting in Maine this summer, aoudad and mountain lion hunting in West Texas this fall, and Cape Buffalo hunting in Africa the summer of ‘09. I’m so clingy!
3. I’m going to buy the new Ruger .380 LCP for my lady because she, too, is also kinda clingy.
4. I’m going to cling more to God and Christ than I ever have before.
5. I’m going to vote for John McCain.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
« Previous Entries