|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
April 2008 - Posts
-
Barack Obama just cannot make his comments about "bitter" small-town Americans who "cling to" guns or religion go away. And now the Wall Street Journal's Arthur Brooks makes a fact-based case for just how wrong Obama's comments are.
According to the story, gun owners are happier in general than non-gun owning Americans. They earn more money and spend less time feeling "outraged" over the actions of others.
Based on the tens of thousands of gun owners I've met, I'd say these statistics sound pretty accurate. If gun owners are angry, it's not because we feel let down that the government hasn't taken good care of us. It's because we feel the government won't let us take care of ourselves!
But gun owners are angry about things like the D.C. Gun Ban, the attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms and .50 caliber rifles, legislation to track our ammunition purchases and to end private transfers of firearms, and all the other gun-control legislation that's designed to crack down on us instead of violent criminals.
The presidential candidates would serve themselves well by reading Brooks' Wall Street Journal article. What they learn about gun owners might surprise them.
|
-
The news out of Philadelphia seems to be changing every day. Mayor Michael Nutter signs gun-control bills and tells the local police to enforce them. The NRA receives a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the law, but at the same time the district attorney says she won't enforce them. But Nutter says he's going to try to convince her to prosecute people who violate these ordinances.
What do Philadelphians think about this? If columnist Christine Flowers of the Philadelphia Daily News is any indication, they're probably disgusted by the shameless political theater put on by their elected officials. She writes of the mayor and council:
"... acting like defiant and belligerent children when we don't get our way isn't going to solve [violent crime] problems. It's just going to confirm what the people in northeastern and western and central Pennsylvania already think of us: that we're a lawless city."
As she points out, the City Council's actions only make people think of Philly as a lawless city, a place where politicians don't care about the rule of law or the Constitution. And if the leaders don't care to follow the law, how can they expect the residents to follow the law?
|
-
The press is finally starting to notice Barack Obama's problem with gun owners. Politico notes that Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to gun-control groups. In fact, Politico's Kenneth Vogel reports that Obama thought about taking over as head of the Joyce Foundation, but decided to focus on politics instead.
The Joyce Foundation gave $21 million to anti-gun groups while the senator served on the board, yet now the head of the Joyce Foundation is trying to claim the group doesn't just fund gun-banners.
Ellen Alberding told Politico, "We're not promoting a particular solution. We're promoting really smart people to think about problems and come up with ideas on how to solve them." That's baloney. From the Violence Policy Center to Ohioans Against Gun Violence, the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Education Fund, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and many others, the Joyce Foundation gives its money to groups that have never supported gun ownership. When was the last time any of those groups came out in support of a pro-Second Amendment law? The answer is never.
The shameless attempts to disguise Obama's record on the Second Amendment has caused the candidate to make the claim that he doesn't know enough about the D.C. Gun Ban case to offer an opinion. It's forced other Democrats to distance themselves from Obama, because they represent pro-Second Amendment constituencies. And now the Joyce Foundation can't even come clean about their point of view ... all because Obama and his supporters can't let Americans find out just what he thinks about your right to keep and bear arms.
|
-
For years, critics of The New York Times have complained about the pervasive bias in the paper's news articles. Gun owners have seen countless stories that are factually incorrect or contain scare quotes from anti-gunners without any counter from the NRA. But this anti-gun bias seems to have grown into something that may be even worse: a pro-crime message.
Reporter David Dunlap was recently assaulted in midtown Manhattan by a man who was upset that the reporter was taking pictures of an illegal activity (signs being illegally posted on light poles). Dunlap was thrown to the ground and beaten, and his camera was smashed. But Dunlap says he won't press charges.
"I'm not inclined to press charges. While my assailant's actions were frightening, they resulted in part from what he interpreted as provocation: that is, my taking pictures after he had explicitly warned me not to. He did not take my wallet, cash or briefcase; something he could easily have done while I was on the ground. Nor do I recall him using much more force than was needed to wrest the camera from me. He didn't kick me gratuitously when I was down. He did what he threatened to do, but no more."
So if a rapist tells you he's going to rape you, doesn't use "much more force than was needed," doesn't rob you, and only does what he threatens to do, should he get off the hook?
Dunlap saves his anger for the company that presumably employed the attacker, Def Jam/Island Records. But most of the people commenting on this story are pleading with Dunlap to press charges. They understand that if this man faces no consequences for his assault, he'll likely feel free to commit another. Too bad Dunlap seems more concerned with seeing a corporation answer for the criminal action of an employee rather than seeing a criminal face justice for his assault on an innocent man.
I have a message for David Dunlap. You were the victim of a crime. But your refusal to prosecute your attacker may lead to other crimes being committed by the same man. And they may not all end with "just a bruise" and a broken camera. Getting tough on crime isn't just the job of politicians. We have our role to play as well if we want to see our streets become safer.
|
-
Los Angeles, California, almost banned murder. Almost.
It turns out the City Council realized that a symbolic 40-hour ban on homicides might just be the dumbest thing anyone's ever tried to do to fight crime, because murder is already illegal. But that didn't stop activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson from urging the council to take the "bold step."
You know what would be a really bold step? The City Council banning plea bargains for 40 hours. That's right: eight hours a day for five days banning the practice of plea bargains for violent criminals. Rapists and robbers get sentenced to the full amount of time for their crimes, rather than simply walking away after a short stint behind bars. Career criminals actually get the time coming to them under the state's "Three Strikes" law, rather than having their violent felonies pleaded away. Now that's a bold statement. Too bad the City Council would never consider it.
|
-
|
If you know someone who lives in Philadelphia, send this to them. If you live in Philadelphia, listen now or lose later:
Your elected officials and local media aren't telling you the truth about new gun control laws they want to impose on you, and you deserve to know the whole story.
Mayor Nutter and the City Council say the city will enforce these new rules, including a ban on many semi-automatic rifles, a one-gun-a-month restriction, and a bill that would turn crime victims into criminals if they fail to report a firearm lost or stolen within 24 hours of when they "should" have known the gun was gone.
Nutter and his cohorts say these laws will reduce crime. That's a joke, because these laws aren't designed to reduce crime. They're designed to deceive ... deceive you into thinking your elected leaders are serious about making your city safer.
Do you know what the punishment is for violating one of these new "laws"? A $300 fine and a maximum 90-day jail sentence. Mayor Nutter and the media haven't told you that.
Now think about the people committing violent crimes in your city. Do you really think a fine and a possible three-month jail sentence is going to stop them from robbing you? From invading your home? From taking your life or the life of your child? Most of these criminals have already done time. And the time they serve is rarely as long as the sentences they're given.
The truth is, there is no easy answer to Philadelphia's crime problem. Tougher sentences that keep career criminals off the streets are part of the solution. But the city should also be investing in proven anti-gang programs that can reach young children before they become involved in criminal activity. Residents have to take back their neighborhoods in partnership with local government. People aren't going to stand up to the criminals until and unless they know the city is going to do something when they're alerted to problems.
Your politicians want you to believe that they've done something remarkable in standing up to the state legislature. The fact is, they've only engaged in more political theater. And while they're play-acting at solving the crime problem, your neighborhoods are still at risk.
It's time you demanded more. It's time you demanded real results, not just more empty promises.
|
-
|
New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s latest volley in his war on gun ownership is convincing Wal-Mart that they need to film every firearm purchase.
The goal, according to the mayor, is to reduce crime. But we know gun control doesn't equal crime control. And this reeks of a public relations stunt instead of a crime-fighting measure.
Gun owners who buy a firearm at Wal-Mart, or any other gun store for that matter, already go through a background check before the purchase can be made. What's the point of videotaping someone making a legal purchase of a product, other than simple harassment? To put it another way, every day Wal-Mart sells thousands of prescription medications that, if used improperly, can result in sickness or death. Are they going to start implementing these same rules at their pharmacies, too?
It's been three years since Bloomberg held his first anti-gun summit in Washington, D.C., and he's had no success to show for it. Legislators have stood up to his anti-gun bullying because they know that what he's proposing isn't about crime. It's about demonizing gun ownership in general.
It's too bad Wal-Mart's putting political correctness above treating their customers with respect. If Sam Walton had treated his customers like this back when Wal-Mart was just a dime store in Arkansas, I doubt the company would still be in business.
|
-
As more and more Americans express their disgust over Barack Obama's recent comments that small-town Americans "cling to" gun ownership and religious faith because they're "bitter", his Democratic opponent is trying to turn up the heat. Hillary Clinton tried to express her support for the Second Amendment over the weekend, leading Obama to fire back: "She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley".
American gun owners have for years understood the elitist concept of special privileges for the few. The same few who look down their nose at the people who respect basic American traditions like flying the flag, going to church, owning a gun and believing in the Bill of Rights. Obama's statement is a crack in the door that gives all of us a peek at how the 'special' people look at the rest of us. Americans can read that code.
The truth is, both Obama and Clinton have long anti-gun records. Hopefully Obama and Clinton will continue to point out how anti-gun the other one is. It just makes my job that much easier.
|
-
As if we needed any more evidence that England's gun ban has been a total failure, just look at the recent story from Time magazine. Twenty percent of Britons surveyed say they fear leaving their homes at night because of the rising tide of violent teens.
Violent crime committed by those under the age of 18 has climbed by more than a third in the past three years, with no sign of it falling any time soon. These violent teens are partly responsible for the rise in knife- and gun-related crime in the country. Yes, crimes involving firearms are increasing, even though it's been a decade since the country banned handguns.
Talk to a former British gun owner, and he or she will tell you, "Don't let it happen in America." Gun bans don't work to reduce crime. They haven't worked in D.C., and they haven't worked in England. A "tough-on-guns/soft-on-crime" approach is lunacy, but that's exactly what they're doing in England. Frankly, it's what the gun-banning politicians are trying to do in Philadelphia right now, by pushing for more gun control laws without even mentioning the criminals committing the violent crimes.
Every day politicians try to blame law-abiding gun owners for violent crime is another day lost in our fight against the gang members and drug dealers who target our children. How long will the politicians play the blame game instead of tackling the problem head-on? Do things have to get so bad that we're afraid to leave our homes? Do we have to wait until we turn into England?
|
-
Statement of Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America:
Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston. America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.
My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.
And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us - the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause as I am to have known him as my friend.
But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers, And they will always have my friendship.
|
-
Did you know that robberies in the home, or home invasions, are up nearly 50 percent since 2000? The New York Times discovered the fact that home invasions are on the rise when they took a look at what states are doing.
It turns out more states are thinking about increasing the sentences for committing a home invasion. But the Times interviewed a law enforcement officer with an interesting perspective.
Lt. Jay Markella, spokesman for the Cheshire, Connecticut, police department, told the Times: "Let's see how the cases go through the court system and if the law is used or taken off the table during a plea bargain. You can create all the new laws you want, but if they are not applied properly, there's really no gain."
The Times went on to report, "Lieutenant Markella also said that if current burglary and assault laws were applied to their full extent, with maximum penalties and consecutive sentences, the new law would not be needed."
In other words, these new laws aren't really necessary, and may only serve as another empty promise by politicians who seek to treat the symptoms of violent crime, not the disease itself. Making something "more illegal" doesn't do anything if you're still not putting the home invaders behind bars for their crimes. And Lt. Markella sounds a lot like NRA members who say we don't need more gun control laws, we just need to enforce the laws on the books.
It's too bad Lt. Markella went on to say that owning a gun won't help against home invasions. Police in Memphis, Tennessee, would disagree. So would police in Tucker, Georgia.
And in the meantime, as politicians debate adding more criminal charges that will most likely be plea-bargained away, more and more Americans are becoming gun owners in order to protect themselves from the violent criminals that slip through the system. Gun control doesn't equal public safety. Crime control does. The two are very different things, and more Americans are realizing that every day.
|
-
I read a heartbreaking story the other day. A woman is on the phone with 911 to report a burglar in her home. Dispatchers hear gunshots, then silence. When deputies arrive, the homeowner is dead.
Her husband arrives a few minutes later, only to be told that his wife is dead. News reports say "he collapsed and started to cry, saying 'No! She just called me. You lie.'"
The real lie is that gun control and gun bans make us safer. All they do is put innocent people at risk of violent criminals. In 2005, the FBI says there were more than 2,000,000 burglaries in this country. There were also more than 400,000 robberies. If you were one of the millions of victims of crime, would you not want the option to defend yourself with a firearm?
Gun bans like Washington, D.C.'s only affect the law abiding. They don't disarm criminals, but they ensure that residents are left with one option: call 911 and hope helps arrive before it’s too late. And sadly, we know all too well how that often works out.
|
|
|
|