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:
Posts Tagged With: Constitution
Sheriff Pulls Business From Dana Safety Supply Because They Stopped Selling Semi-Automatic Rifles To Civilians
Sometimes you find something that says it all and says it right, and with Mr. Carl Stevenson’s comment on the GodfatherPolitics.com 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 http://www.jpfo.org and you’ll find the proof of that little-known fact, and much more of interest. (In particular, see http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20…, 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)’
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.” — Conservativebyte.com
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.
The left-wing mainstream media seems to think so. An article on Examiner.com 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.
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?
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.