Skip navigation

Category Archives: GUN RIGHTS

The right to bear arms and the attacks on those rights.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

The resignation of avowed communist Van Jones has plenty of people feeling that the future of the country is a bit safer. And it is an interesting “coincidence” that the attendees of the Cincinnati Tea Party demanded his resignation on Saturday, and then it was announced on Sunday.

The newest threat to the free market system and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, according to many conservatives is the appointment of Cass Sunstein as the regulatory czar. LaTimes.com describes him as “left of center, ” and Forbs.com has reported that he is as a, “progressive. ” Some of his academic writings apparently favor animal rights above human rights to the point of arguing the defense of animal rights over human rights in a court of law.

He’s not known for being a supporter of the second amendment, which is the right to keep and bear arms, and that disturbs ranchers who want to protect their cattle, those who are interested to have a gun on hand to protect their family, and those who are hunters.

Forbes.com has also stated that, Sunstein has “spent years delving into the obscure issues of regulatory law and behavioral economics,” which is a deep concern for conservatives who are supporters of the free market system, and the fact that he has, “embraced a controversial ‘senior death discount’ ” is of great concern to those who are pro life. Somehow, the words ‘senior death discount’ sounds an awful lot like the death panels in the healthcare bill.

Interestingly, TheHill.com reported on Wednesday that Representative Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), “called for President Obama’s ‘czars,’ or appointed high-level advisers, to testify before Congress about their ‘authority and responsibilities’ in the executive branch.”

The question of the legitimacy of their authority is a good one. Especially since Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that, “…he (the President) shall nominate, and  by and with the Advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law” (emphasis added). In other words, the czars need to be confirmed by the Senate. And if the Senate doesn’t confirm them, they have no business standing in the positions to which they have been appointed.

To make matters even more interesting, there is a bill named HR 3226, also known as the “Czar Accountability Act of 2009.”  This particular bill states that, “appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office which is established by or at the direction of the President and headed by an individual who has been inappropriately appointed to such position…without the advice and consent of the Senate.”  The bill was introduced in the House on July 15, 2009 by Rep. Jack Kingston and is being supported by many in the House. It would be in the best interest of “We the People” to demand that it be made into a law.

Similar Articles:

Tea Party attendees demand Van Jones resignation, and it happens
Socialism in America is unconstitutional
Congressman says Obama has potential to ‘make himself a dictator’
Senate’s fiscal irresponsibility is scaring the UN
Former communist turned Christian organizes interdenominational group in Prayer for Nation

Websites of possible interest:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3226 (HR 3226: Czar Accountability & Reform)
cincinnatiteaparty.org/
teaparty.org/

Advertisements

On the Second Amendment,
Don’t Believe Obama!

On the campaign trail, Senator Obama hides behind carefully chosen words and vague statements of support for sportsmen and gun rights to sidestep and camouflage the truth. But even he can’t hide from the truth forever… his voting record, political associations, and long standing positions make it clear that, if elected, Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history. The facts speak for themselves. This election day, vote to defend freedom…because if Obama wins, you lose.


THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES:

  • Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
    Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03

  • Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
    Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
    Politico, 03/31/08.

  • Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
    Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04

  • Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
    Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

  • Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
    United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05

  • Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
    Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04

Veteran – Obama TV Ad

MORE

On the Second Amendment,
Don’t Believe Obama!

On the campaign trail, Senator Obama hides behind carefully chosen words and vague statements of support for sportsmen and gun rights to sidestep and camouflage the truth. But even he can’t hide from the truth forever… his voting record, political associations, and long standing positions make it clear that, if elected, Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history. The facts speak for themselves. This election day, vote to defend freedom…because if Obama wins, you lose.


THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES:

  • Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
    Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03

  • Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
    Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
    Politico, 03/31/08.

  • Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
    Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04

  • Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
    Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

  • Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
    United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05

  • Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
    Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04

“…just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”

Barack Obama, 2008
Philadelphia primary debate

var omniName = “Story – NRA Begins Push To Tarnish Obama On Guns – 4472798”;

if (typeof(window[‘pageName’]) != ‘undefined’) omniName = pageName;

var omniPath = “/politics/”;
if (typeof(window[‘pagePath’]) != ‘undefined’) omniPath = pagePath;

var omniType = “Stories”;
if (typeof(window[‘pageType’]) != ‘undefined’) omniType = pageType;

var date = new Date(“08 Oct 2008 22:32:38 +0000”);
var days = new Array(“Sunday”, “Monday”, “Tuesday”, “Wednesday”, “Thursday”, “Friday”, “Saturday”);
s.pageName = omniPath + omniName;
s.server=”www.cbsnews.com”;

s.prop8 += “:”+s.pageName;
s.prop18 = date.getHours() + “:00”;
s.prop19 = days[date.getDay()];
s.prop21 = “4472798”;
s.prop22 = “NRA Begins Push To Tarnish Obama On Guns “;
s.prop23 = “NRA Obama McCain Guns”;

s.hier1 = s.prop8;
/************* DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! **************/
var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)

Print ThisGo BackGo to CBSNews.com Home


NRA Begins Push To Tarnish Obama On Guns

Sept. 23, 2008


(CBS) This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.


The defining moment in the National Rifle Association’s eight-figure advertising offensive against Barack Obama takes place about 15 seconds into a new spot featuring Karl Rusch, a white, middle aged Virginian clad in hunting gear.

After claiming that Obama supports “a huge new tax on my guns and ammo,” Rusch closes the door of his truck and turns directly to the camera.

“Where is this guy from?” he asks. “He’s probably never been hunting a day in his life.”

The spot, the Washington Post points out, is a “huge stretch” – the claim that Obama wants to institute a large tax on guns and ammo, for instance, rests on a few words in an essentially irrelevant and vaguely-worded newspaper article from nine years ago.

But the point is clear: If you’re a hunter, Barack Obama is not anything like you. And if he doesn’t understand your concerns, he sure doesn’t deserve your vote.

Obama has been fighting the notion that he opposes gun rights, stressing on the stump that he backs Second Amendment protections. His campaign has released a radio ad featuring American Hunters and Shooters Association head Ray Schoenke telling hunters the Democratic nominee won’t come for their guns.

“The bottom line is this. If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it away,” Obama said earlier this month in Pennsylvania. “Alright? So they can keep on talking about it, but this is just not true.”

(Obama also said at the time that even if he wanted to take hunters’ guns away, he “couldn’t get it done” since he doesn’t “have the votes in Congress” – a statement that did not exactly put sportsmen’s fears to rest.)

Obama’s running mate Joe Biden, meanwhile, suggested recently that Republicans will use the issue to scare voters away from the Obama-Biden ticket.

“I guarantee you, Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” Biden said in Southern Virginia. “Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you. I got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.”

The NRA’s political arm has been going after the Democratic nominee hard: In addition to an advertising blitz that includes four new television spots running on national cable and in New Mexico, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, as well as radio and print ads, the organization is suggesting that Obama would be “the most anti-gun president in American history.” It has sent mailers and emails to members hammering the Illinois senator, including one from NRA President Wayne LaPierre suggesting that Obama has a “deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms.” Earlier this week, there was a minor dustup when West Virginia union leaders said an NRA film crew tried to coerce miners into badmouthing the Democratic nominee on camera.

“Barack Obama has throughout his entire career embraced the radical agenda of extremist gun control groups,” NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said. “He’s going all over the country trying to mislead gun owners and sportsman that he is some sort of friend. It’s shameless. We’re going to arm gun owners with the facts so they can make an informed decision on Election Day.”

The Democratic presidential nominee has voted to leave gun makers and dealers open to lawsuits, and as a state lawmaker he supported tighter restrictions on firearms and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

“Obama has the audacity of claiming to support the second amendment,” Cox said. “This is a politician who has shown nothing but disdain and mistrust of law abiding gun owners in America.”

Largely absent from the NRA’s rhetoric has been much mention of Obama’s rival, GOP presidential nominee John McCain. Though NRA officials made conciliatory statements concerning McCain after he secured the GOP nomination, the Arizona senator has not always been a favorite of the gun lobby: He earned a C+ from the NRA in 2004 after backing legislation to close the so-called “gun show loophole,” legislation that this 2003 NRA document claimed “is about eliminating gun shows.” McCain is also the co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation that the NRA saw as an unfair restriction on its free speech.

“We’ve had disagreements with Senator McCain, those disagreements are well known, but it would be foolish to disregard over 20 years of high profile agreements,” Cox said. McCain opposed an assault weapons ban and favored shielding gun makers and dealers from lawsuits, and his addition of lifetime NRA member and hunter Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket was widely lauded by gun advocates.

The NRA, which claims roughly 4 million members, plans to spend $40 million on election related advertising, a large chunk of it devoted to tearing down the Democratic nominee. But the organization has not yet endorsed a candidate. In the October issues of its three magazines, the NRA plans to include a political preference chart which details the candidates’ positions and encouraging members to support the candidate whose positions best matches their values.

Gun issues have largely remained low profile for much of the campaign, except during a short period in June following a Supreme Court’s decision to toss out the D.C. gun ban. At the time, McCain unequivocally applauded the measure and signed an amicus brief supporting it; Obama said that while he supports the Second Amendment, “I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures.”

McCain also took an opportunity in the wake of the decision to take a shot at Obama’s infamous comment that small town voters frustrated by economic stasis “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” The comment is referenced in Rusch’s NRA advertisement.

“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.

According to Democratic political consultant Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, a former John Edwards advisor who is known for pushing Democrats to take rural voters’ concerns more seriously, it is McCain, not Obama, whom gun owners should fear. Saunders argues that while Obama has essentially vowed to leave the gun owners alone, McCain has stood by his position on gun shows.

“One of Obama’s young volunteers called me up and asked me what he could do to help,” Saunders, who casts himself as more pro-gun than the NRA, told CBSNews.com. “I told him to go down to the Hillsville (Virginia) gun show with some fliers with [McCain’s] picture on them that said, ‘if you elect this guy John McCain president, don’t plan on coming back next year.'”

McCain told Field And Stream that his position in favor of closing the gun show loophole is the issue most likely to cause friction between himself and sportsmen.

“I think that gun shows are marvelous, and we now have the capability for instant background checks,” he said.

Dennis Fusaro, a Republican and pro-gun activist in Virginia who served for a time as Ron Paul’s national field director, said he would not be voting for either Obama or McCain. A lifetime member of the NRA, Fusaro was director of state legislation for the Gun Owners of America, a hardcore gun-rights group that describes itself as “no compromise.”

“On paper, Obama appears worse than McCain,” he said. But McCain is more dangerous, he argued, because he is more likely to successfully enact legislation that would result in fewer rights for gun owners. Obama, Fusaro believes, simply won’t make the issue a priority.

Saunders said Obama should continue to stress that he backs Second Amendment rights. He argued that McCain’s ten-point lead among rural voters in 13 key states would be higher if the GOP nominee had more credibility when it comes to gun issues.

“The single issue voters on guns are not the anti-gun people, it’s the pro-gun people,” he argued.

But Fusaro said it was unlikely that many pro-gun voters would support Obama in November.

“There are people who are looking at Barack Obama and are scared,” he said. “They may just say, ‘I can live with John McCain.'”

By Brian Montopoli
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

var pg_locurl = document.location.href;
if (pg_locurl.indexOf(“entertainment”) != -1) {
alt = “Entertainment News”;
} else if (pg_locurl.indexOf(“health”) != -1) {
alt = “Health News”;
} else if (pg_locurl.indexOf(“tech”) != -1) {
alt = “Technology News”;
} else if (pg_locurl.indexOf(“world”) != -1) {
alt = “World News”;
} else if (pg_locurl.indexOf(“national”) != -1) {
alt = “US News”;
} else if (pg_locurl.indexOf(“politics”) != -1) {
alt = “American Politics”;
} else if (pg_locurl.indexOf(“business”) != -1) {
alt = “Business News”;
} else if (pg_locurl.indexOf(“opinion”) != -1) {
alt = “Opinion Editorials”;
} else if (pg_locurl.indexOf(“sports”) != -1) {
alt = “Sports News”;
} else {
alt = “CBSNews.com”;
}


Feedback Terms of Service Privacy Statement

On Shooting Taggers: Why Conservatives and Liberals Differ
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Earlier this month Andrew Sullivan, a well-known writer, once in the center, now on the left, nominated me for what is apparently his lowest badge of distinction for defending citizens who shoot to wound graffiti vandals, or “taggers,” while committing their vandalism.

Under the heading, “Malkin Award Nominee,” Sullivan provides a quote from my radio show:

“‘So you will now say — I hear the voice of an ACLU member — ‘Dennis, do you think that this guy should have shot these people spray painting graffiti on his shop?’ To which my answer is yes. I do. Not to kill. Not to kill. But if he shot them in the legs or in the arms I would have considered the man one of the great advancers of civilization in my time. And that is what divides left from right. Because anybody on the left hearing this would think that this is barbaric whereas I consider not stopping these people in any way that is necessary to be barbaric.’ — Dennis Prager, on his radio show.”

Mr. Sullivan provides no commentary because, as I predicted in the excerpt he cites, what I said is so obviously morally offensive to him, no commentary is necessary. It is self-indicting.

To those on the left.

Their differing reactions to graffiti vandals further clarify the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives.

Reactions to graffiti on the cultural left — not necessarily the political left, since liberal politicians must respond to public outrage or they are not re-elected — have generally ranged from support to indifference.

Many on the left have long described graffiti as “urban art” and graffiti vandals as “artists.” Even when not admired or even defended, most liberals regard graffiti in far less negative ways than do conservatives. Conservatives tend to regard graffiti as an assault on society, perpetrated by pathologically narcissistic lowlifes bent on undermining the foundations of higher civilization.

To personalize this for a moment, while I assume that graffiti troubles Sullivan, I strongly doubt it troubles him nearly as much as it troubles me. If it did, the odds are he would not be a man of the left.

Why are so many on the left not as angered by graffiti as most conservatives are? I would like to offer some possible reasons:

One is that liberals find it difficult to condemn the poor, especially poor members of ethnic and racial minorities. If rich white kids spray painted their names on university buildings, there would probably be a liberal outcry.

A second reason is that crimes against property tend to disturb the left less than the right, especially when “no one is hurt”; and graffiti is deemed by many liberals as a classic example of no one being hurt. That is why I suspect that most people on the left would express greater anger toward someone who lit up a cigarette in a mall or a restaurant than toward an inner city kid who spray painted his initials on neighborhood walls and signs.

A third reason is that conservatives tend to view higher civilization as more fragile than the left views it. Conservatives believe the line between civilization and barbarism is under constant assault and is not necessarily enduring. That is one reason the right tends to have a higher regard for the police than does the left. Conservatives see the police as “the thin blue line” that separates civilization from barbarians.

So, it is natural that conservatives would see graffiti as vandalism, as an undermining of the very notion of higher civilization, as a public scorning of the common good, as essentially an “F—- you” to society.

Liberals are far more inclined to see graffiti as a mere nuisance, or even as an example of the downtrodden trying to have a voice in a civilization that oppresses young people who are usually members of historically oppressed minorities.

To the conservative, graffiti is an assault on civilization; to the liberal, graffiti is the result of civilization’s assault on those who paint the graffiti.

For those who share Sullivan’s political and social values, the notion that someone would defend a man who shot and wounded graffiti vandals defacing his property is worthy of derision. Sullivan is so sure his readers have contempt for such a view that he felt it unnecessary to offer a word of commentary on what I said.

That is unfortunate. I would be interested to know how Sullivan regards taggers and what he would suggest be done to them if caught in the act of defacing property. Since most people suspect that calling the police would achieve little, if anything, what should be done?

My first wish is that taggers be arrested and punished. I also wish for world peace and a cure for cancer. But the real-life choice is almost always between taggers getting away with their vandalism and an irate citizen taking action. Given the destructive nature of tagging — the moment one sees graffiti, one knows one has entered a largely lawless and violent environment where thugs terrorize innocents — I prefer something, even if violent, rather than nothing be done.

I have no desire to see a graffiti vandal killed — my position has always been that only those who cause death deserve death (that is why I oppose the death penalty for any crime except murder). But if enough taggers are wounded, their assault on civilization will decline dramatically. And if one accidentally dies? That would be a tragedy. But here is the bottom line: More innocent people will die if tagging is not stopped than if it is. Graffiti unchecked leads to worse crime.

Those who deface private and public property are not otherwise decent kids who are oppressed and not allowed any other form of self-expression. My sense is that the vast majority of graffiti vandals are headed toward, if not already involved in, a life of sociopathology, including violence.

Indeed, increasingly those graffiti vandals do engage in violence. Citizens who so much as flash their headlights or yell at them to stop have been shot and sometimes murdered.

As in so many other areas, with regard to taggers, right and left see life through opposing moral prisms. On the left, the tagger is viewed as society’s victim; on the right, society is viewed as the tagger’s victim.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

WASHINGTON D.C. AND GUNS

Lawsuit filed against new DC gun regulations

WASHINGTON (AP) — The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that struck down Washington’s 32-year-old handgun ban filed a new federal lawsuit Monday, alleging the city’s new gun regulations still violate an individual’s right to own a gun for self-defense.

Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs argue that the city’s regulations are “highly unusual and unreasonable” in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit claims the District of Columbia continues to violate the intent of the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision by prohibiting the ownership of most semiautomatic weapons, requiring an “arbitrary” fee to register a firearm and establishing rules that make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun in the home for immediate self-defense.

The D.C. Council was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates when it unanimously passed emergency gun legislation July 15. The law will remain in effect for 90 days, and the council expects to begin work in September on permanent legislation.

The regulations maintain the city’s ban of machine guns, defined in the law as weapons that shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading. That definition applies to most semiautomatic firearms.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks in the home unless there is a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm.”

“A robber basically has to make an appointment” for a resident to be able to prepare the weapon for use, Heller’s attorney, Stephen Halbrook, said Monday. Halbrook also called the city’s definition of machine guns “bizarre.”

“The District’s ban on semiautomatic handguns amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for the lawful purpose of self defense in the home,” the lawsuit alleges.

D.C. interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said the suit came as no surprise and that he expects a long legal fight as the issue makes it way through the courts.

“I think there’s a fundamental disagreement with the intent of the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Nickles, noting that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not give officials much guidance with respect to regulating firearms.

“I feel comfortable with what the city has done,” Nickles said.

After the Supreme Court narrowly struck down Washington’s handgun ban last month in a narrow 5-4 decision, the D.C. Council quickly moved to comply with the ruling, and residents were allowed to begin applying for handguns July 17 for the first time since 1976.

Monday’s lawsuit alleges that Heller initially tried to register a semiautomatic Colt pistol, but was denied because D.C. police considered the weapon to be a machine gun.

Besides Heller, the other plaintiffs are Absalom Jordan, whose application to register a .22-caliber pistol was denied, and Amy McVey, who must return to D.C. police headquarters two more times to register her weapon after being photographed and fingerprinted and undergoing a background check, according to the lawsuit.

Washington’s gun ban essentially outlawed private ownership of handguns in a city struggling with violence. But what impact the ban has had on crime has long been debated, particularly after homicides more than doubled during a crack epidemic in the late 1980s and early ’90s.

The city’s gun regulations remain among the strictest in the country under the new regulations, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

July 30, 2008 Posted by ragamuffin08 | GUN RIGHTS, THE BILL OF RIGHTS | | No Comments | Edit