Posts Tagged With: Constitution

Sheriff Pulls Business From Dana Safety Supply Because They Stopped Selling Semi-Automatic Rifles To Civilians

My hat is  off to Oconee County Sheriff Scott Barry for standing up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners in the Great State of Georgia. I would love to see more sheriffs, as well as other law enforcement and government officials at the State, County, and Local levels quit doing business with companies that discriminate against gun owning private citizens. Here is the article:

Sheriff Pulls Business From Dana Safety Supply Because They Stopped Selling Semi-Automatic Rifles To Civilians.

Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Innocents Betrayed

There is nothing more frightening than the government, nor more dangerous. The power it wields is vast, and only a respect for the law and for the people keep it from becoming tyrannical. Our founders understood that the law is only an idea, words on paper; and that once government chooses to ignore those words, only the people can prevent tyranny. Hence, they gave us the 2nd Amendment, the People’s Liberty’s Teeth as Washington put it, to make sure that our own leaders would never turn into the despots that drove them, and many others, from Europe.

In 1938, Hitler drafted gun control laws that began the disarmament and eventual genocide of millions. In 1968, leading American Democrats crafted the Gun Control Act of 1968. I say crafted, but it is mostly plagiarized from Hitler’s 1938 law. They have been working hard to disarm the American people ever since, with complicity of left-leaning republicans and a mainstream media that is little more than the GNC’s own propaganda wing. These groups have worked hard to blame guns for the violence that bloodies our streets and kills our young people, while shielding from blame–or even scrutiny–societal causes that arose from their own leftist programs.

Now, a few days after the Sandy Hook Massacre, and we see the Left giving pitiful lip service to the grief caused by Lanza, the shooter, while doing everything it can to push for ever-harsher gun controls. The Left refuses to acknowledge that gun control could not have saved those children; they insist that taking guns from the law-abiding and the peaceful is the only way to solve this problem. The following documentary shows what happens when personal liberty is surrendered in this way, it gives you insight into what happens when people listen to their government when they said, “Trust us! We would never harm you!”

Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Some Rational Thoughts on Gun Control

Sometimes you find something that says it all and says it right, and with Mr. Carl Stevenson’s comment on the article, Stop Trying to Reason with Anti-gun Advocates, that is just what we have. Thanks Carl!

With all of the hysteria, hype, and misinformation regarding gun control that’s emanating from the “progressive” left and flooding the media in the aftermath of the recent tragic shootings in Oregon and Connecticut, there are many important things that need to be raised into the public consciousness and which are deserving of serious consideration by the public.

I’m going to start with the origins of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“the GCA68”), since it’s in many ways the seed from which the misnamed “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994-2004 (the “AWB94”) sprung.

Since reinstating and expanding the AWB94 is the immediate goal of Senator Diane Feinstein and her fellow tyrant wannabes, knowledge of the roots from which the ban sprung is important.

Most people don’t know that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was “written” by Senator Thomas Dodd (ironically, D-CT), the father of Senator Chris Dodd (also, D-CT), a major proponent of the AWB94.

I put the word “written” in quotes above, because Dodd actually had the Library of Congress translate Hitler’s gun laws from the original German and used them almost word for word in “crafting” the law.

This is WELL documented … poke around at and you’ll find the proof of that little-known fact, and much more of interest. (In particular, see…, but do poke around more on the JPFO website – there’s a wealth of useful information there.)

OK, now that we’ve established the heritage of the AWB94, let’s explore the facts about both the myths that are circulating about the weapons they seek to ban and the general outcome which has, historically, always followed the disarmament of a population.

The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar civilian weapons that Feinstein et al are demonizing and want to ban are NOT assault rifles at all. Don’t give the gun banners any leeway on these lies and distortions. Their intent is to confuse and misinform those who don’t know any better. In other words, they’re lying.

Tell people the truth … tell them that the AR-15 is not really functionally different than other rifles except that it outwardly RESEMBLES the M-16/M4 machine gun that our troops use. (For reasons of economy in manufacturing, the inherent reliability and maintainability of the underlying design, and other factors, there are a lot of common parts, but the important ones that determine function are designed to preclude illegal conversion to fully-automatic operation like the military weapons with which the gun-banners want you to confuse them.)

The guns they want to ban are NOT machine guns, as the gun grabbers and media try to convince you. They do NOT “spray bullets” as military weapons do. However their outward appearance, combined with deliberate untruths and the use of incorrect terminology, makes it easier for the deceivers to demonize these guns as they try to build support for banning them. (Which is, of course, just a step towards further bans in the future.)

Also impress up on people that the AR-15 and functionally similar guns are NOT “only suitable for a war zone” as the ban’s proponents and media personalities keep saying, but that they are, in fact, NOT really suitable for combat use at all because of their limitations. (Our troops would be SERIOUSLY out-gunned if they went into battle with AR-15s.)

Further, they are not “heavy weapons” as some of the media people keep saying. Inform people of the factual reality that these weapons are actually considerably LESS powerful than most of their grandpa’s deer rifles – to the point that in many states it’s illegal to hunt game larger than groundhogs and coyotes with the .223/5.56mm round that the AR-15 fires.

The public has to be informed so that they understand that they are deliberately being misled and misinformed by the media to advance the citizen disarmament agenda of leftist tyrant wannabes in our government. (These same people through DHS and other alphabet agencies have recently purchased over 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammo – enough to shoot every man, woman, and child in the country 3-4 times – ammo that’s illegal for military use under international law). Considering that the you and I and all of the other US taxpayers are paying for all of this ammo, it’s frighteningly reminiscent of the story of political prisoners’ families being forced to pay for the bullets used to execute them … isn’t it?

If we allow these leftist control freaks to ignore and ultimately gut the 2nd Amendment, history will inevitably repeat itself. These “gun control” proposals have NOTHING to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with CONTROL.

Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered about 15 million.

Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered about 40 million.

Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.

The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.

Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.

Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.

The list goes on … over 170 million people murdered BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments disarmed them.

They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you.

The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” – Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, Hope (2001)’

Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bob Costas, Gun Control, and the Death of the Free Press

In case you haven’t heard yet, a pro football player, the linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, Jovan Belcher, shot and killed his girlfriend and then thanked a few key members of his team management before killing himself. There is talk of Belcher having drug and relationship problems, or that traumatic head injuries incurred during his football career, played a part. I don’t know. It will be weeks before that is all sorted out. What I do know is this: As a gun owner, as an advocate of the Second Amendment, I am not responsible for either of those deaths.

That, of course, runs contrary to what Bob Costas, a long-time talking head for NBC Sports, believes and spewed out during the half-time of the NFL telecast he was working last Sunday night. In a move, matched for tacky political grasping only by Obama himself, Costas began to preach about how the Belcher killings demonstrate the need for more gun control, how terrible it is that we exercise our Second Amendment rights, and how none of this would have happened if on Belcher had not been allowed to have a gun.

Yeah, right.

The report is that he and his girlfriend had been fighting for hours before he shot her. The presence of a gun did not affect that. In fact, had there been no gun for Belcher to retrieve, he would have possibly gone for a knife, a baseball bat, a heavy ashtray, a frying pan, or even his own fists. What would Costas have said if the story was that Belcher beat his girlfriend to death with his fists before laying down in front of an approaching train to complete the atrocity? Perhaps he would have blamed the exercise machines for giving him the strength necessary to pommel the woman to death, and the railroad for being attractive to suicides. I can hear it now: We must have laws in place to keep large men from training to the point where they can kill with their hands; and we must have laws to keep reckless train operators from killing poor, innocently murderous pro football players!

That is absurd, right? So why is the same argument—Costas’ argument—when it focuses on guns, taken seriously? Because the leftist, anti-gun press, parroting anti-gun forces like the Brady Campaign, Obama, Bloomberg, Emmanuel, and their ilk insist upon it.

These forces march in lock-step together. They are interested in disarming the American People, forcing reliance on government by preventing the people from taking care of themselves, and making the U.S. finally safe for them. The mainstream media, with NBC in the forefront, is essentially their propaganda wing. I am not saying they take their stories from leftist sources; I am saying that with leftist control of the media, they are so ideologically driven that they say insane things naturally while doing their damnedest to silence dissenting voices and quell arguments against their assertions.

Yes, I said insane. Bob Costas, and the other useful idiots trying to use this tragic event to further their anti-gun agenda are, in fact, nuts. They ignore the simple fact that this tragedy was authored entirely by Jovan Belcher and that no one else, gun owner or not, has any responsibility to the situation. They ignore the fact that for every Jovan Belcher, there are hundreds of people who use their guns to defend themselves against violence every day. They ignore the fact that more guns equals less crime and violence. The leftist media ignores all of this in order to hang onto a narrative that has lost all credibility with the majority of Americans; that guns, and not the people who use them for evil purposes, are the problem.

If there was really a free press in this country, that narrative would be up for pretty severe argument. The fact that it isn’t, that only a handful of fringe media outlets call the leftists on their anti-gun fallacies, is proof that we no longer have a free press. Instead, we have a media culture that insists that you can say whatever you like as long as the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, the Democrat National Committee, and Barack Obama, approve of it.

The Belcher incident was tragic, no question of it, but so is every other instance of domestic violence; every car crash, plane crash, train crash; fire, flood, tornado; accidental electrocution; every instance of child abuse and molestation. We never speak of surrendering rights with any of those, and they are far more prevalent than what happened with Belcher. I put it to you that just because a gun is involved, that is no reason for the armed and the innocent to start surrendering anything.

Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Louisiana Gets it Right on Guns

While the Republicans were genially losing their bid for the presidency against a man with the worst presidential record in the history of the United States, the good people of Louisiana were quietly striking a blow for liberty within their own borders by passing the strongest pro-gun constitutional amendment we have seen yet.

Titled the “Louisiana Right To Bear Arms, Amendment 2 (2012),” the amendment passed 73.45 percent to 26.55. It bolsters the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights within the state by eliminating “language within the Louisiana Constitution that would allow passage of laws prohibiting concealed weapons.” —

The idea of the drafters of the new amendment was to prevent liberal, activist judges from imposing restrictions on the gun rights, specifically the right to legally carry a concealed weapon, of Louisiana citizens. We know that concealed weapons, lawfully carried and used, lower violent crime by making it dangerous to be a criminal. From prison interviews conducted by the Justice Department some years ago, we know that burglars are less inclined to invade a home where the resident is armed; and criminals in general are less inclined to accost a person on the street if that person is armed. Therefore, crime in that jurisdiction, where the people are armed, goes down. On the other hand, when you look at places like Chicago, Washington DC, Great Britain–all of which have either banned the private ownership of guns, or restricted them in some draconian way–you see runaway violence. It is that simple: an armed society is a polite society.
Of course, there is more to it than merely a desire to lower the crime rates. After Hurricane Katrina, we saw what happens when Leftists (ie. the Louisiana governor at the time, and the New Orleans mayor) are in control when a crisis hits. One of the first things they did was disarm everyone they could, as fast as they could, and often at gunpoint. Under the excuse of “safety,” these authorities used the crisis to accomplish something they had wanted to do for a long time: Disarm their citizens.
Now, thanks to the drafters of that constitutional amendment, and the voters, the People of Louisiana don’t have to worry quite as much. Of course, there is still the federal government to worry about. Returning Obama and the democrats to power was more than a betrayal of everything America stands for, it was an invitation for the kinds of totalitarian, jackboot tactics we saw after Katrina, but without the hurricane as an excuse.
I guess that is why so many of them, as well as people from 21 other states, are clamoring for secession.
Categories: CPL Law, Election 2012, Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Obama Coming for Our Guns?

That is the question. I think, from his actions during his initial 48 hours after the election,  it is likely he will try. The question is how. Here is one perspective.

Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is America Slipping into Fascism?

There is a new T-shirt out there. It asks everyone who is for gun control to raise their hand. The graphic is of Hitler giving the Nazi salute. I can see the Lefties out there gnashing their teeth at the very thought, but the reality of history is that gun control is linked to every instance of genocidal atrocity from the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks, to the Holocaust, to Stalin’s purges, to the killing fields of Pol Pot…the list goes on. Each was preceded by “sensible gun control” practiced on people who were brought up to trust in and rely upon their government. Once those trusting people were unarmed, their ever-so-trusted governments turned on them like rabid dogs in a preschool. Why? Sometimes it was a coldly calculated political decision to eliminate any possible threats to the state. Sometimes it was to set an example and put fear into the hearts of the people. Sometimes it was racism and hate. Does it matter why? For whatever reason, the 20th Century saw millions disarmed, and then killed, by their governments. Our Founding Fathers knew the powerlessness of unarmed subjects, hence the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. They understood that the only way a people remains free is to be armed.

The Second Amendment reads: 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.

The Left has argued for decades that the Militia clause referred to the National Guard, and not to individuals. The problem is that there was not a National Guard when Madison wrote that sentence. No, he understood the word militia to means something entirely different. As our Founders would have understood the word, militia referred to every able-bodied man who could pick up a rifle and defend his community. What does that mean for us today? It means that the militia, as envisioned by Madison, Jefferson, and our other Founders, is us. You are the militia. I am the militia. We are the militia, and that means that we are the last, best line of defense against tyranny.

Why is this important? Because like all democracies, we are losing our way. For years, the Left has been slowly, inexorably, subversively, chipping away at the liberty of the American People. A process that began with FDR in the 1930s, and really took off in the 1960s, put the Left firmly in control of education and media; allowing this erosion of liberty in return for the false security of ever-growing federal government to be made acceptable to enough people to allow them to openly take over. With the reelection of Obama, we have come to that point, where the Left comes out of the shadows and does its dirt right out in the open.

The first thing Obama did was sign on to the UN Small Arms Treaty, which forces restrictive gun control on Americans regardless of the will of the States or even the will of Congress. Then, as if to add insult to injury, Senator Dianne Feinstein began the process of reviving her useless and deeply reviled assault weapons ban. Now we see rules changes to make acquiring a Federal Firearms License (FFL) more daunting by reminding all concerned that denial hearings, while constituting due process, do not have to follow the rules of evidence and other legal niceties required in federal courts. In other words, they are setting the stage to increase the denials of FFLs. Throw in the economic, foreign policy, homeland security, healthcare, and other issues this government plans to “work on;” the openly socialist goals of the Democrat party and the left-of-center shift by the Republicans; and you will see that we are facing a major change in what America means as an ideal. In fact, after the government take-over of the auto industry, it became clear that this government is taking a fascist path reminiscent of Mussolini and Hitler, two totalitarian dictators who grew government for the good of the people, restricted their rights in the name of homeland security; disarmed their citizens, turning them into subjects; and then went homicidal.

But that can’t happen here, I hear you cry, because we are civilized and good!

When Hitler was elected Chancellor, Germany was the hub of European culture, an intellectual mecca with amazing universities, vibrant arts, and a free, cosmopolitan environment that was second to none. Italy was not terribly different, nor was Japan; yet between them, these three nations tore the world apart. America is no different, and it is naivety to suggest that the same atrocities cannot happen here. I am not saying it will, I am saying it can, and with the Obama reelection, I am saying it might. After all, the Left has been pushing us in this direction for decades.

Gun owners, dealers, manufacturers, are all going to face daunting new challenges as this government continues to erode liberty to consolidate power, but then again, so will everyone else; including those who voted this government back into power.

Keep your powder dry, folks. The Militia may yet be needed.

Categories: Election 2012, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Is the NRA on the Ropes?

The left-wing mainstream media seems to think so. An article on says this:

The Washington Post editorial board yesterday used the sentencing of a shooting rampage maniac in Tucson to amplify a growing post-election theme that the National Rifle Association has lost political clout and is no longer an impediment to passing “gun control” legislation.

Using Brady Campaign election result and expenditure numbers, the Post concluded “This evidence that the association’s ability to influence elections may be exaggerated should stiffen the spines of Mr. Obama and congressional leaders to take on this important issue.”

I cannot say that the NRA is my favorite organization, but I will say they have staunchly fought the good fight for Second Amendment rights for decades. I will also say that Left have been itching for years to be able to write a headline like that, so we can’t blame them for jumping the gun a bit.

The gun issue was hardly mentioned in the Presidential election, which was a shame, but not unexpected. The Republicans conducted a single-issue campaign that left them unable to properly speak to pretty much anything else, such as gun rights. For Romney, everything he talked about was somehow linked to the economy. That, in and of itself, is not bad, as long as he also talked about other issues in their own right. Had the NRA been able to get him to discuss gun rights as well as the economy, it would have been good. More than that, it would have been a miracle.

Where you saw strength in the NRA was in the congressional and state-level races. There, where the candidates are closer to the people, the rights of the people are considerably more important to them. In that environment, the strength of the NRA and other gun rights organizations comes through. More than that, when specific pieces of legislation are up for votes, the NRA can bring great pressure to bear on sitting politicians in defense of our gun rights.

The editorial board of the Washington Post are every bit as wrong as the demagogues of the Brady Campaign if they think the NRA is down and out. It isn’t, and over the next four years, the NRA will prove that.

Categories: Guns and Politics, Liberty | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who Thinks Petreus Really Resigned Over His Extramarital Affair

The NewsMax story is pretty cut and dried, beginning with:

CIA Director David Petraeus resigned his post as head of the nation’s leading spy agency on Friday, saying he had engaged in an extramarital affair and acknowledging that he “showed extremely poor judgment.”

True, the resignation letter does go on to mention the affair, but doesn’t it strike you as odd that he is making such a public resignation over an affair that no one was talking about, and under an Leftist administration that happily turns a blind eye to sexual misconduct every day? Moreover, is it not also strange that his resignation comes on the heels of his report that no one in the CIA told the Benghazi station agents to stand down?

So far, two upstanding military men have gone down after contradicting Obama on that single incident; the first, General Ham, for arguing with the President and Secretary of Defense as the attack was taking place that forces should be sent in to protect those Americans in the embassy, and now the second, Petraeus, for denying cover to Obama by denying any CIA role in ordering that no help be sent.

So, what does this mean to us? As if his horrific attempt to bolster support for a new Assault Weapons Ban called Fast and Furious was not enough, the Benghazi affair, with all its subsequent fallout, further demonstrates the ruthlessness of this individual, Obama, when it comes to getting what he wants. He cares nothing for loyal supporters, he cares nothing for the rule of law, he cares nothing for the American People. He is a true Saul Alinsky radical and firmly believes that the ends, no matter how trivial or personal, always justify the means, no matter how grave or public. Here is the take-away:

  • He wants your guns.
  • He wants them all.
  • He will do anything to take them from you.

And I mean anything. Any questions?

Categories: Election 2012, Liberty | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Obama Wastes No Time Trying to Undermine the Second Amendment via the UN

Patriot Outdoor News gave us the bad news that shortly after winning reelection, Obama backed a U.N. committee’s call to renew debate over a draft of the UN Small Arms Treaty. Worried about giving Romney yet another weapon to use against him, Obama had backed-off supporting the treaty last July. He wasn’t alone in this as there was substantial opposition, some of which came from Democrats sweating the November elections. Now, all that is over and as Obama told the Russians, he has “more flexibility” and, as you can see, he is using it.

Stock up on weapons and ammo, boys and girls. Obama will do anything he can, including surrendering US sovereignty to foreign dictators, to end civilian gun ownership in this country. He has to be stopped, and that means lots of pressure on the Senate and being ready to file suit in Federal court.

One more thing: Obama is really only part of the problem. Anyone who voted for Obama voted against YOUR Second Amendment rights (not to mention YOUR prosperity, YOUR healthcare freedoms, and every other right Obama has stepped on over the last four years). Remember that, and deal with them accordingly.

Categories: Election 2012, Guns and Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at