From the talented Scott Bieser.
Showing posts with label Gun Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
NRA Board member calls for assault weapons ban
NRA Board member Joaquin Jackson calls for a ban on so called "assault weapons.":
Friday, July 27, 2007
Romney Wrong on Guns, AGAIN
From the National Association for Gun Rights:
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney continues to display his contempt for gun owners. In yesterday’s Foster’s Daily Democrat, Romney made convulated statements about the Second Amendment, but reinforced his earlier positions that citizens can't be trusted with many types of firearms. To make matters worse, Romney clearly has no understanding of firearms or the basic firearms laws of this country.
"No one is suggesting that automatic weapons be made available to the public. No one is suggesting that automatic weapons be made legal," Romney said at a town hall meeting in a school gym. "I support the Second Amendment. I support the ban on (automatic weapons). They're not connected with a fundraising event where they're using weapons not available to the public."
Wrong again, Gov. Romney. Automatic weapons are legally owned by hundreds of thousands of citizens across the country, who have undergone extensive background checks from local and national law enforcement and are heavily -- and unconstitutionally -- regulated in their use, travel and possession. The 1934 National Fire Arms Act allows anyone who purchases a $200 federal tax stamp after passing a background check to possess a fully automatic weapon (often called NFA weapons ), which are all registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Currently, there are 366,000 of these firearms legally owned by Americans (Small Arms Review, Feb. 2007).
There is no documentation that a legally owned and registered NFA weapon has been used in the commission of a violent crime.
NFA weapons (legal machineguns) are different from the so-called "assault weapons" Gov. Romney banned in Massachussets in 2004, a fact lost on Romney as he stumbled through a legal briar patch in yesterday's comments.
"I've held the stick on an F-16 fighter jet. That doesn't mean I think the public ought to be flying F-16 fighter jets," Romney said.
Wrong again, Gov. Romney. The Constitution is clear: our right to keep and bear small arms “shall not be infringed”. That document explicitly protects citizen's rights to own firearms, with no "sporting use" requirement stated.
Romney apparently believes that the Second Amendment protection only applies to duck hunters.
Romney has a long history of supporting gun control. He signed the permanent Massachusetts assault weapons ban and was a vocal proponent of the Brady Gun Registration Act, the Feinstein Assault weapons ban, and many other infringements upon our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Romney claims to support the Second Amendment, but in the same breath calls for more gun control. You can’t have it multiple ways.
“Wrong Again Romney” proves he doesn’t like guns or know anything about them
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney continues to display his contempt for gun owners. In yesterday’s Foster’s Daily Democrat, Romney made convulated statements about the Second Amendment, but reinforced his earlier positions that citizens can't be trusted with many types of firearms. To make matters worse, Romney clearly has no understanding of firearms or the basic firearms laws of this country.
"No one is suggesting that automatic weapons be made available to the public. No one is suggesting that automatic weapons be made legal," Romney said at a town hall meeting in a school gym. "I support the Second Amendment. I support the ban on (automatic weapons). They're not connected with a fundraising event where they're using weapons not available to the public."
Wrong again, Gov. Romney. Automatic weapons are legally owned by hundreds of thousands of citizens across the country, who have undergone extensive background checks from local and national law enforcement and are heavily -- and unconstitutionally -- regulated in their use, travel and possession. The 1934 National Fire Arms Act allows anyone who purchases a $200 federal tax stamp after passing a background check to possess a fully automatic weapon (often called NFA weapons ), which are all registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Currently, there are 366,000 of these firearms legally owned by Americans (Small Arms Review, Feb. 2007).
There is no documentation that a legally owned and registered NFA weapon has been used in the commission of a violent crime.
NFA weapons (legal machineguns) are different from the so-called "assault weapons" Gov. Romney banned in Massachussets in 2004, a fact lost on Romney as he stumbled through a legal briar patch in yesterday's comments.
"I've held the stick on an F-16 fighter jet. That doesn't mean I think the public ought to be flying F-16 fighter jets," Romney said.
Wrong again, Gov. Romney. The Constitution is clear: our right to keep and bear small arms “shall not be infringed”. That document explicitly protects citizen's rights to own firearms, with no "sporting use" requirement stated.
Romney apparently believes that the Second Amendment protection only applies to duck hunters.
Romney has a long history of supporting gun control. He signed the permanent Massachusetts assault weapons ban and was a vocal proponent of the Brady Gun Registration Act, the Feinstein Assault weapons ban, and many other infringements upon our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Romney claims to support the Second Amendment, but in the same breath calls for more gun control. You can’t have it multiple ways.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Dems, Gun Control and YouTube
I was not one of the four CNN geeks that watched the recent CNN/YouTube Sponsored Democrat Presidential debate.
For those you, who like I have a real life, and may have missed this whole spectacle, here's what it was all about.
The Main Stream Media gods temporarily descended from their polyester thrones to allow the unwashed masses -- that's you and me -- to submits questions for the Presidential debate in the form of YouTube videos.
Among the many creative videos and questions was one by Michigan gun owner Jered Townsend. Jered's video included Jered asking the Democrats about their stand on gun control and pictures him holding a well equipped AR-15 rifle that he refered to as his "baby."
Here is video of Jered's question and the hysterical hand-wringing from the Democrat Candidates that followed.
Honestly, I am very dismayed by Jered's video. While I completely agree that we must hold politicians accountable for their actions, I think playing into the stereo-type of "fanatical gun owners" does nothing to advance the cause of freedom and liberty.
I own an Ar-15, and am very proud of it, but I refrain from PDA's and BCDA's (Basic Cable Displays of Affection) with it. Not only does that make the girlfriend jealous, it casts gun owners in an unnecessarily negative light. You may be crazy, but I, sir, am not!
Sadly I suspect that Jered was mostly in this for the publicity. Any one that is part of the gun culture understands that the Democrat party is the party of gun control. I could understand that Joe Colt might not know that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are strident anti-gun warriors, but Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton? Please.
Read more about Jered and the YouTube Debate here.
Michelle Malkin weighs in at National Review Online.
For those you, who like I have a real life, and may have missed this whole spectacle, here's what it was all about.
The Main Stream Media gods temporarily descended from their polyester thrones to allow the unwashed masses -- that's you and me -- to submits questions for the Presidential debate in the form of YouTube videos.
Among the many creative videos and questions was one by Michigan gun owner Jered Townsend. Jered's video included Jered asking the Democrats about their stand on gun control and pictures him holding a well equipped AR-15 rifle that he refered to as his "baby."
Here is video of Jered's question and the hysterical hand-wringing from the Democrat Candidates that followed.
Honestly, I am very dismayed by Jered's video. While I completely agree that we must hold politicians accountable for their actions, I think playing into the stereo-type of "fanatical gun owners" does nothing to advance the cause of freedom and liberty.
I own an Ar-15, and am very proud of it, but I refrain from PDA's and BCDA's (Basic Cable Displays of Affection) with it. Not only does that make the girlfriend jealous, it casts gun owners in an unnecessarily negative light. You may be crazy, but I, sir, am not!
Sadly I suspect that Jered was mostly in this for the publicity. Any one that is part of the gun culture understands that the Democrat party is the party of gun control. I could understand that Joe Colt might not know that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are strident anti-gun warriors, but Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton? Please.
Read more about Jered and the YouTube Debate here.
Michelle Malkin weighs in at National Review Online.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Gazette against Big Brother, for self defense
Today's opinion from the Colorado Springs Gazette makes a great argument for what our Constitutional right to self-defense really means.
Restricting rights
Scotland edging toward knife control
The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the best summations of individual rights in history. It clearly lays out the colonists’ case against the tyranny of King George III in words anyone can understand. It also defines what the signers were laying claim to: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Most Americans are as familiar with these words as they are their own names. But do they understand the implications of the stated rights?
Take the right to life. That’s pretty straightforward; no one has the right to deprive you of your life except under the most extreme and specific circumstances. That implies a right to self defense. Restricting how you provide for your own defense is a limit on your right to life. That’s what gun control advocates either don’t understand or don’t care about.
They cloak their rhetoric in terms that make their goals seem acceptable; they don’t want to ban guns, just put “reasonable” restrictions on ownership, how often one can buy a firearm and what type it can be. That’s not unreasonable, is it? Let’s take a short trip abroad and see how this is playing out in one of the bastions of peace and tranquility the gun banners often point to as an example.
The United Kingdom has long had many restrictions on the type of firearms citizens may own. After the schoolyard massacre of 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, private ownership of guns was restricted almost to the point of an outright ban. That should have reduced violence to the point where police could keep it in check, right? Not hardly.
Remember how gun-control advocates want “reasonable” restrictions? That’s just the first step. That’s how things started out in the UK, but that didn’t stop people from attacking and killing each other. Now, Scotland Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson is going after knives. But not all knives, of course, just the really dangerous ones. According to Jamieson, “Sharp items continue to be the most common method of killing in this country, consistently accounting for around half of all murders each year.”
We won’t argue with the minister’s statistics, they make sense in a society where firearms aren’t very common. But her rhetoric sounds familiar to people in this country who have heard similar arguments for restricting firearms.
Jamieson admits that banning knives outright would help solve her problem, but realizes that knives also have “legitimate” uses. “The vast majority of people use knives in the home responsibly and safely every day,” she notes. She’s going after “non-domestic knives,” those with “a blade or sharp point, and which is not designed only for domestic use, or only for use in the processing, preparation or consumption of food.” Those words are very similar to the language of several laws and proposed laws around the U.S. that seek to ban firearms that don’t have a “legitimate sporting purpose.” H.R. 1022, a bill that would reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, would give the U.S. attorney general the sole authority to decide which firearms fit the “sporting purpose” definition gun control advocates claim they don’t want to ban.
We worry about giving the government that kind of broad power. Jamieson doesn’t seem to believe self defense is a legitimate use of knives. She said in a statement, “Knives can be lethal weapons and to carry them for ‘protection’ or as a status symbol is not something which we can tolerate.” We’re don’t think government officials who don’t believe in basic rights is something the people can tolerate. [Emphasis Added]
Restricting rights
Scotland edging toward knife control
The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the best summations of individual rights in history. It clearly lays out the colonists’ case against the tyranny of King George III in words anyone can understand. It also defines what the signers were laying claim to: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Most Americans are as familiar with these words as they are their own names. But do they understand the implications of the stated rights?
Take the right to life. That’s pretty straightforward; no one has the right to deprive you of your life except under the most extreme and specific circumstances. That implies a right to self defense. Restricting how you provide for your own defense is a limit on your right to life. That’s what gun control advocates either don’t understand or don’t care about.
They cloak their rhetoric in terms that make their goals seem acceptable; they don’t want to ban guns, just put “reasonable” restrictions on ownership, how often one can buy a firearm and what type it can be. That’s not unreasonable, is it? Let’s take a short trip abroad and see how this is playing out in one of the bastions of peace and tranquility the gun banners often point to as an example.
The United Kingdom has long had many restrictions on the type of firearms citizens may own. After the schoolyard massacre of 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, private ownership of guns was restricted almost to the point of an outright ban. That should have reduced violence to the point where police could keep it in check, right? Not hardly.
Remember how gun-control advocates want “reasonable” restrictions? That’s just the first step. That’s how things started out in the UK, but that didn’t stop people from attacking and killing each other. Now, Scotland Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson is going after knives. But not all knives, of course, just the really dangerous ones. According to Jamieson, “Sharp items continue to be the most common method of killing in this country, consistently accounting for around half of all murders each year.”
We won’t argue with the minister’s statistics, they make sense in a society where firearms aren’t very common. But her rhetoric sounds familiar to people in this country who have heard similar arguments for restricting firearms.
Jamieson admits that banning knives outright would help solve her problem, but realizes that knives also have “legitimate” uses. “The vast majority of people use knives in the home responsibly and safely every day,” she notes. She’s going after “non-domestic knives,” those with “a blade or sharp point, and which is not designed only for domestic use, or only for use in the processing, preparation or consumption of food.” Those words are very similar to the language of several laws and proposed laws around the U.S. that seek to ban firearms that don’t have a “legitimate sporting purpose.” H.R. 1022, a bill that would reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, would give the U.S. attorney general the sole authority to decide which firearms fit the “sporting purpose” definition gun control advocates claim they don’t want to ban.
We worry about giving the government that kind of broad power. Jamieson doesn’t seem to believe self defense is a legitimate use of knives. She said in a statement, “Knives can be lethal weapons and to carry them for ‘protection’ or as a status symbol is not something which we can tolerate.” We’re don’t think government officials who don’t believe in basic rights is something the people can tolerate. [Emphasis Added]
NRA sells out gun owners, again
From Rocky Mountain Gun Owners' email alert:
Today's (6/10/07) Washington Post has reported that the NRA has, once again, cut a "deal" with the anti-gunners in Congress over your gun rights.
According to the Post, "Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers."
As many Oregon residents have learned, the background check system, a prior restraint on your rights, is a failure.
This system, which assumes you are guilty and requires you to prove your innocence before exercising a God-given, Constitutional right, has delayed and denied countless Coloradans attempting to make legal firearms purchases.
If Congress and the NRA have their way, things are about to get a whole lot worse. In a deal the Post calls "a marriage of convenience for both sides," and NRA lobbyist Chris Cox calls "good politics," the failed National Instant Check system is poised to be expanded even further. Furthermore, the proposed legislation will punish states that do not supply all the private mental health records the Feds will be demanding.
Cox reportedly said "if the legislation becomes a 'gun-control wish list' as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill." But this is the same line they used on their second attempt to pass liability protection for gun dealers and manufacturers. That bill became a "gun control wish list" and the NRA not only supported it, but demanded that it pass with all the gun control that was tacked on to it.
(http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2005-s397.shtml)
What do gun owners get in return for this vastly expanded intrusion into their privacy? According to the Washington Post "Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. "
Individuals with minor infractions, and military veterans don't get their names removed from government "no-buy" lists, they get the "chance" to "petition" to have their names removed.
We are quite confident predicting that process will be a nightmare if it can be done at all. The recent implosion of the passport issuing system is a perfect example of the kind of morass that all government databases become.
According to the Washington Post "Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system".
If that does not terrify you it should. The current background check system is an intrusive, error-riddled mess. Now NRA and the anti-gunners in Congress want to expand a system that can't keep criminal records straight, and add vast new amounts of data about people's "mental health" records. The abuse and misuse of people's private information is nothing new and it's a very short trip from "court-ordered drug treatments" to "has attended an AA meeting."
No one supports arming people who are a danger to themselves or others, but adjudicating someone's mental health is an inexact science at best. And there is no reason to believe that this latest attack on your right is going keep dangerous people from getting guns.
One of the legislators responsible for this "deal," anti-gun Congressman John Dingell (who has voted with his anti-gun colleagues 96.8% of the time), said "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon." But of course, that's preposterous. All this law will bring us is more invasions of our privacy, more government databases, and more denied purchases.
Today's (6/10/07) Washington Post has reported that the NRA has, once again, cut a "deal" with the anti-gunners in Congress over your gun rights.
According to the Post, "Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers."
As many Oregon residents have learned, the background check system, a prior restraint on your rights, is a failure.
This system, which assumes you are guilty and requires you to prove your innocence before exercising a God-given, Constitutional right, has delayed and denied countless Coloradans attempting to make legal firearms purchases.
If Congress and the NRA have their way, things are about to get a whole lot worse. In a deal the Post calls "a marriage of convenience for both sides," and NRA lobbyist Chris Cox calls "good politics," the failed National Instant Check system is poised to be expanded even further. Furthermore, the proposed legislation will punish states that do not supply all the private mental health records the Feds will be demanding.
Cox reportedly said "if the legislation becomes a 'gun-control wish list' as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill." But this is the same line they used on their second attempt to pass liability protection for gun dealers and manufacturers. That bill became a "gun control wish list" and the NRA not only supported it, but demanded that it pass with all the gun control that was tacked on to it.
(http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2005-s397.shtml)
What do gun owners get in return for this vastly expanded intrusion into their privacy? According to the Washington Post "Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. "
Individuals with minor infractions, and military veterans don't get their names removed from government "no-buy" lists, they get the "chance" to "petition" to have their names removed.
We are quite confident predicting that process will be a nightmare if it can be done at all. The recent implosion of the passport issuing system is a perfect example of the kind of morass that all government databases become.
According to the Washington Post "Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system".
If that does not terrify you it should. The current background check system is an intrusive, error-riddled mess. Now NRA and the anti-gunners in Congress want to expand a system that can't keep criminal records straight, and add vast new amounts of data about people's "mental health" records. The abuse and misuse of people's private information is nothing new and it's a very short trip from "court-ordered drug treatments" to "has attended an AA meeting."
No one supports arming people who are a danger to themselves or others, but adjudicating someone's mental health is an inexact science at best. And there is no reason to believe that this latest attack on your right is going keep dangerous people from getting guns.
One of the legislators responsible for this "deal," anti-gun Congressman John Dingell (who has voted with his anti-gun colleagues 96.8% of the time), said "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon." But of course, that's preposterous. All this law will bring us is more invasions of our privacy, more government databases, and more denied purchases.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Hickenlooper is coming for your guns
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper wants to feed the beast. As reported in today's Rocky Mountain News, Hickenlooper has joined uber-liberal group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
The group published a full-page ad in the USA Today calling on Congress to repeal the so-called "Tiahrt Amendment" which prevents the anti-gunners in BATFE from colluding with local police departments to create a national gun registry.
From the RMN:
The group published a full-page ad in the USA Today calling on Congress to repeal the so-called "Tiahrt Amendment" which prevents the anti-gunners in BATFE from colluding with local police departments to create a national gun registry.
From the RMN:
The mayors' battle is against the Tiahrt Amendment, named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kansas. He inserted a clause in the 2003 Department of Justice spending bill restricting local government and police access to a federal "gun trace" database. The law has been reauthorized every year since then.
The database is collected by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives...
Amendment supporters say the law protects gun owners' constitutional right to bear arms and shields the identity of undercover officers.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Brownshirts in Baltimore
From the AP:
Translation: The Brownshirts will be creating a "victimization zone" where law-abiding citizens will be treated like criminals.
A city council leader, alarmed by Baltimore's rising homicide rate, wants to give the mayor the power to put troubled neighborhoods under virtual lockdown.
"Desperate measures are needed when we're in desperate situations," City Council Vice President Robert W. Curran told The (Baltimore) Sun.
He said he would introduce the legislation next week. Under Curran's plan, the mayor could declare "public safety act zones," which would allow police to close liquor stores and bars, limit the number of people on city sidewalks, and halt traffic during two-week intervals.
Police would be encouraged to aggressively stop and frisk individuals in those zones to search for weapons and drugs.
Translation: The Brownshirts will be creating a "victimization zone" where law-abiding citizens will be treated like criminals.
Monday, May 14, 2007
10 month old receives firearms permit
Aside from the ridiculous IL requirement that everyone have a firearms registration card, this is just another example of silly, needless government.
From Fox News:
From Fox News:
In Illinois, you're never too young to own a gun.
That's what one father found out, when he registered his 10-month-old son for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Daily Southtown columnist Howard Ludwig registered his son —- Howard David Ludwig, nicknamed "Bubba" — online after the child's grandfather bought him a gun shortly after the baby's birth. Ludwig chronicled the road to gun ownership in a story that appeared in the Southtown on Sunday.
"Anyone who wants to own a firearm or purchase a firearm needs a FOID card," Ludwig told FOX News. "I applied for one of these for my son. Now ironically he can’t buy a gun until he’s 18 years old, but if he wants to own one -- which he does thanks to Grandpa -- he needs one of these cards anyhow."
The ID card, complete with a photo of the tot, allows the child to own a firearm and ammunition, and legally transport an unloaded weapon, even though Bubba has yet to learn how to walk.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Denver Post misses point on guns
Today's Denver Post has a poorly masked screed against Americans "gun culture" which they're trying to pass off as an objective "news story".
From the low-lights:
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger and one shot is fired. Why is this such a hard concept for the press to understand. Cho's pistol was NOT outlawed under the Clinton 2nd Amendment Infringement act of 1994.
The worst senatence in the whole article:
Excuse me, but I thought a gun was a combination piece of metal, plastic and rubber. Apparently the Denver Post believes that the gun itself kills people and not psychopathic murderers.
I know it's a cliche, but guns don't kill people, people do.
From the low-lights:
Handguns account for much of this growth, and semiautomatic pistols - the type of gun Cho used in the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history - have replaced six-shot revolvers as the handgun of choice.
Semi-auto means you pull the trigger and one shot is fired. Why is this such a hard concept for the press to understand. Cho's pistol was NOT outlawed under the Clinton 2nd Amendment Infringement act of 1994.
The worst senatence in the whole article:
From 1999 through 2004, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, guns killed an average of 80 people a day. Gun homicides averaged 31 a day. [emphasis added]
Excuse me, but I thought a gun was a combination piece of metal, plastic and rubber. Apparently the Denver Post believes that the gun itself kills people and not psychopathic murderers.
I know it's a cliche, but guns don't kill people, people do.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
UPDATE on Giuliani Protest
This is the latest Email alert from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners concerning last night's conservative protest of Giuliani's fundraiser:
Yesterday, Republican Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani held a fundraiser in Denver.
Hosted at the mansion/home of former Denver Nuggets star Kiki Van DeWeghe, the event was meant as a strict money gatherer for Giuliani's frontrunner campaign.
Only one problem: Giuliani is adamantly anti-gun, with a record to prove it.
Being the first in a series of collaborative efforts between Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights, we wanted this one to be a surprise (to both the organizers of the event and the attendees). Rest assured we'll let you know when there is another event.
A small number of hardcore RMGO activists met outside the Cheeseman Park mansion, where valet attendants waited for the rich (tickets were $4000+ apiece for the personal discussion) to meet with the former New York mayor.
Dressed in nice clothes, with smiles on our faces, we handed out this flyer (http://www.nagr.org/Giuliani.pdf) to the fatcats as they walked in.
Thinking we were part of the event staff, they happily took the flyer as we said "If you care about your right to own firearms you'll want to see the incredible anti-gun record of Mayor Giuliani's."
Responses always vary, but few refused the flyer. Even John Elway read it, and seemed to be shocked by the label of "Liberal" on a Republican.
Friends, this kind of thing hurts politicians. It's extremely demoralizing to a politician and their staff when people aren't fawning all over them, trying to shake their hand, get a picture with them, and "get access" to someone with the kind of star power a frontrunner for president generates.
Even more effective is the affect this kind of activity has on politicians and political operatives who attend these events. They see an organized group going after someone who could become the next President of the United States. If a group has the guts to go after someone with that kind of power, they certainly will go after a State Legislator who votes wrong. It can do nothing but improve their behavior.
I like to call these events "Accountability Activities". Hold politicians accountable, and it's remarkable what we can accomplish.
Undoubtedly, this pressure (remember, they are in a battle to secure the Republican nomination, where being a conservative is the only thing that counts) will make them lie. Hours after the Virginia Tech shooting, Sen. John McCain (who may be more anti-gun than Giuliani) issued a statement saying this tragedy had not changed his mind on guns. Clearly, his campaign people saw the tragedy as a way to position McCain closer to gun owners, who can have an inordinate sway over who becomes the GOP nominee. But it's all a farce, as McCains long record on guns reveals.
Of course, there are groups out there who will provide cover for these politicians. We'll try to tell you when that happens, but you'll need to apply a lot of your own discernment.
This election season you're going to be told a lot of things that simply aren't true.
One thing you're sure to hear from every Republican candidate is "I support the Second Amendment." Don't let that statement stand on face value.
Some perspective on Virginia Tech
From the AP Wire:
"All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last 10 years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen -- a potential victim -- had a gun," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.
"The latest school shooting at Virginia Tech demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen."
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Conservatives slap Schwartz
Yesterday, the now infamous HB07-1174 (We're coming for your guns and we'll be back for you Bible later) passed the Senate on Third Reading.
The Republican Caucus, who stood up in support of the right to keep and bear arms, were joined by Sen. Lois Tochtrop and Sen. Jim Isgar.
However there was some funny business with the bill, as reported by the Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC) and ColoradoSenateNews.Com.
From the RSCC:
Gail Schwartz better be looking over her shoulder come election time in 2010.
Money Quotes:
From ColoradoSenateNews.Com, Senator Greg Brophy (R-Wray) on Gail Schwartz flip-flop:
It is note worthy that the Colorado Springs Gazette, the paper of record for Morse' district called him out in an editorial on Sunday for his backward stance on gun rights.
From the RSCC:
The Republican Caucus, who stood up in support of the right to keep and bear arms, were joined by Sen. Lois Tochtrop and Sen. Jim Isgar.
However there was some funny business with the bill, as reported by the Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC) and ColoradoSenateNews.Com.
From the RSCC:
Senate observers believed HB07-1174 to be dead when it failed on a 2nd reading vote in the Senate. However Democrat leadership strong-armed the deciding vote, Democrat Senator Gail Schwartz (Snowmass Village) into flip-flopping and voting against the interests of her rural constituents.
“Party politics has taken center stage in the Senate, over the interests of the people of Colorado,” stated Senator Scott Renfroe (R – Eaton), a member of the Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC). “It’s sad that Senator Schwartz would put the priorities of the gun-grabbing Democrat leadership ahead of representing the rural values of her district.”
Gail Schwartz better be looking over her shoulder come election time in 2010.
Money Quotes:
From ColoradoSenateNews.Com, Senator Greg Brophy (R-Wray) on Gail Schwartz flip-flop:
In comments after the debate, Brophy added, “At least Sen. Morse has been consistent and honest in his contempt for gun-owners. I'm disappointed in Sen. Schwartz for actually voting for the bill after she voted against it."
It is note worthy that the Colorado Springs Gazette, the paper of record for Morse' district called him out in an editorial on Sunday for his backward stance on gun rights.
We also urge Morse to stop thinking and acting as if he’s still on the police force, take a refresher course on the Constitution and try to see the world through the eyes of his non-cop constituents, who have civil liberties that need to be protected.
From the RSCC:
“The true irony of this session is that the Democrats accuse conservatives of only caring about God, gays and guns. Yet one hallmark of this session has been a stream of bills introduced by prominent Democrats with an anti-God, anti-gun, and pro-gay slant,” concluded Lambert.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Fun Thoughts
Is everyone familiar with Shad Planking? If not, I've included that handy-dandy link to the tenuously reliable wikipedia for a quick review.
The growing number of political people that show up at the machine gun shoot every year has given me a funny glimpse into the future. What if the machine gun shoot became a political function on a grand scale? What if Tom Tancredo had used the shoot to announce his campaign instead?
Heh... Funny thoughts...
The growing number of political people that show up at the machine gun shoot every year has given me a funny glimpse into the future. What if the machine gun shoot became a political function on a grand scale? What if Tom Tancredo had used the shoot to announce his campaign instead?
Heh... Funny thoughts...
Monday, April 02, 2007
Fun With Guns
Whew, this weekend was a pretty good time other than the snow and wind that showed up to bother us a couple times. I'm of course referring to the machine gun shoot that took place this weekend.
All the usual trappings were there. Dynamite... the smell of napalm... well at least the smell of smoke in general. Even the unmistakable laugh of RMGO director Dudley Brown could be heard through the cacophony of gun fire.
There were a few friends from the golden dome there too. My favorite moment was when three senators were standing together watching the fun when some fourth person starts a conversation about how stupid the members of the state legislature are. Apparently our concerned voter friend is unaware that he is speaking to three of them.
When the concerned voter says "Sometimes they act so dumb it just makes me want to give them a good slap!" One of our senators replied "Oh believe me, I know the feeling."
All the usual trappings were there. Dynamite... the smell of napalm... well at least the smell of smoke in general. Even the unmistakable laugh of RMGO director Dudley Brown could be heard through the cacophony of gun fire.
There were a few friends from the golden dome there too. My favorite moment was when three senators were standing together watching the fun when some fourth person starts a conversation about how stupid the members of the state legislature are. Apparently our concerned voter friend is unaware that he is speaking to three of them.
When the concerned voter says "Sometimes they act so dumb it just makes me want to give them a good slap!" One of our senators replied "Oh believe me, I know the feeling."
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Wanna Blow Stuff Up?
Heck yes I do. Who doesn't like to cut loose at dynamite with a belt-fed, fully automatic weapon every now and then?
This weekend is the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners fun shoot out in Fort Morgan. Complete with cannons, machine guns, explosives, and of course ear protection it's fun way to relax exercise a constitutional right.
I snagged some details from RMGO's page, but be sure to head over to their site for full details. They've even got a little map with directions.
Essentially it's open from 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. this Friday and Saturday, and is located outside of Ft. Morgan.
If you want to shoot stuff in a fun and safe environment, it's a good way to get your hands on some hardware that thanks to government interference costs law abiding citizens thousands of dollars.
This weekend is the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners fun shoot out in Fort Morgan. Complete with cannons, machine guns, explosives, and of course ear protection it's fun way to relax exercise a constitutional right.
I snagged some details from RMGO's page, but be sure to head over to their site for full details. They've even got a little map with directions.
Essentially it's open from 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. this Friday and Saturday, and is located outside of Ft. Morgan.
If you want to shoot stuff in a fun and safe environment, it's a good way to get your hands on some hardware that thanks to government interference costs law abiding citizens thousands of dollars.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Parent of Columbine victim testifies against gun control
The following is testimony from Columbine victim Rachel Scott's father, Darrell. Mr. Scott spoke out against gun control and in favor of personal responsibility.
The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!
Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational
systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.
As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your
own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!
Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!
Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational
systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.
As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your
own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Quote of the Week
"My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons." - Rudy Giuliani on licensing all firearms in New York (Boston Globe, March 21, 2000).
[Eds. Note: This also serves as one of the many reasons I will not support America's communist mayor for President.]
Hat Tip to National Association for Gun Rights. Read about how all the Presidential Candidates stack up on gun rights here.
[Eds. Note: This also serves as one of the many reasons I will not support America's communist mayor for President.]
Hat Tip to National Association for Gun Rights. Read about how all the Presidential Candidates stack up on gun rights here.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Does your county sheriff hate freedom?
Thanks to the diligent, no-compromise efforts of Senator Scott Renfore (R-Greeley) and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, we now know which county sheriffs love freedom.
It has long been the practice of many county sheriffs to enter conceal carry permit holders into the Colorado Bureau of Investigations (CBI) criminal database. This practice, while allowed by state statute, is clearly a form of gun registry and violates some of our most basic and Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
HB07-1174 "We're coming for your guns now, and we'll be back for your Bible later" would codify this un-constitutional practice, and is expected to be heard on 2nd reading in the senate, some time this week.
Read more about concealed carry issues and the CBI database here [Thanks to RMGO!].
The List of Shame:
It has long been the practice of many county sheriffs to enter conceal carry permit holders into the Colorado Bureau of Investigations (CBI) criminal database. This practice, while allowed by state statute, is clearly a form of gun registry and violates some of our most basic and Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
HB07-1174 "We're coming for your guns now, and we'll be back for your Bible later" would codify this un-constitutional practice, and is expected to be heard on 2nd reading in the senate, some time this week.
Read more about concealed carry issues and the CBI database here [Thanks to RMGO!].
The List of Shame:
| Colorado Counties which enter Concealed Carry Permit Holders into the Criminal Database | ||
| Provided by CBI on 3/09/07 | ||
| County | Offending Sheriff | # in CCIC |
| Adams | Doug Darr | 1688 |
| Alamosa | Dave Strong | 68 |
| Archuleta | Pete Gonzalez | 606 |
| Arapahoe | Grayson Robinson | 2873 |
| Baca | Steve Salzbrenner | 1 |
| Bent | Gerry Oyen | 13 |
| Boulder | Joseph Pelle | 1307 |
| Broomfield | Tom Deland | 258 |
| Clear Creek | Don Kruger | 1 |
| Crowley | Miles Clark | 16 |
| Denver | * Chief Whitman | 1209 |
| Delta | Fred McKee | 429 |
| Dolores | Jerry Martin | 48 |
| Eagle | Joseph Hoy | 141 |
| Elbert | William Frangis | 18 |
| Fremont | James Beicker | 611 |
| Garfield | Lou Vallario | 5 |
| Gilpin | Bruce Hartman | 70 |
| Gunnison | Rick Murdie | 120 |
| Hinsdale | Ronald Bruce | 67 |
| Jefferson | Ted Mink | 3792 |
| Kit Carson | Ed Raps | 62 |
| Lake | Ed Holte | 51 |
| La Plata | Duke Schirard | 861 |
| Larimer | Jim Alderden | 3111 |
| Lincoln | Tom Nestor | 5 |
| Logan | Brett Powell | 85 |
| Mesa | Stan Hilkey | 2181 |
| Moffat | Tim Jantz | 123 |
| Montezuma | Gerald Wallace | 457 |
| Montrose | Rick Dunlap | 548 |
| Otero | Chris Johnson | 67 |
| Ouray | Dominic Mattivi | 32 |
| Park | Fred Wegener | 409 |
| Pitkin | Bob Braudis | 80 |
| Prowers | Jim Faull | 39 |
| Rio Blanco | Si Woodruff | 176 |
| Rio Grande | Brian Norton | 5 |
| San Juan | Sue Kurtz | 5 |
| Teller | Kevin Dougherty | 697 |
| Yuma | Sam McCoy | 63 |
| Total | 22398 | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
