|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
May 2008 - Posts
-
Just a few weeks ago, Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue signed legislation that extends Right-to-Carry into restaurants across the state. Of course, anti-gun politicians and opponents of Right-to-Carry have been busy making the same outrageous claims we've heard for decades: It'll make restaurants more dangerous, how can we tell if someone's carrying, and on and on.
Those critics should take a look at what happened in the town of Winnemucca, Nevada, not long ago. It was about 2:30 in the morning when Ernesto Villagomez walked in to the Players Bar and Grill and began shooting. He killed two men and wounded several others. But when Villagomez stopped to reload, a customer in the restaurant used his legally owned firearm to stop the killer.
That customer is a Right-to-Carry holder who was in the right place at the right time. He didn't make that restaurant more dangerous. He saved lives.
Send this story to every Georgian you know. They won't hear it from a media too afraid of firearms to cover the issue fairly, but the citizens of Georgia deserve to know the truth about Right-to-Carry.
|
-
|
If you missed Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's speech to NRA members in Louisville, I want you to go into the archives here at NRANews.com and listen to what he has to say.
When was the last time you heard an elected official talk about a government out of control? When was the last time you heard a politician share the stories of law-abiding gun owners disarmed by the very government sworn to protect them?
Governor Bobby Jindal understands what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He knows the righteous anger of a man who sees the bureaucracy fail us in a time of emergency. He knows it because he feels it. He's lived it.
The NRA has been working to return the guns to the law-abiding gun owners who were disarmed, and soon we will have our day in court. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and his police commissioner Warren Riley will have to face their accusers, the very people they left helpless. And the NRA will win this fight, like we've won so many others.
When Katrina hit, Bobby Jindal wasn't governor of Louisiana. Now he is, and he's told us that what happened after the hurricane hit will never happen again. Not on his watch. Never again.
|
-
|
For months now, I've listened to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter use the NRA and its members as scapegoats for the city's violent crime. After the murder of Philadelphia police Sgt. Steven Liczbinski, Nutter said the NRA "should apologize."
At a hearing contesting the legality of five gun-control ordinances signed by Mayor Nutter, he said the NRA and its members are "virtually criminal" for opposing the patently illegal and unconstitutional infringements on Philadelphians' freedoms. Like the Roman emperor Nero, Mayor Nutter is fiddling while his city burns, ignoring the real problems that are only getting worse.
But Nutter's refusal to address the violent crime plagues his city.
The question is, does Mayor Nutter have the courage to admit that cop killer Howard Cain should have been behind bars instead of on the street?
Does Mayor Nutter have the courage to admit that someone arrested 27 times for illegal possession of a gun should have more than three convictions to his name?
Does Mayor Nutter have the courage to ask prosecutors why, on two-dozen occasions, they failed to prosecute Cain for his alleged crimes?
Does Mayor Nutter have the courage to demand that the parole board explain why all three men accused of Sgt. Liczbinski's death were on parole when he was murdered?
Does Mayor Nutter have the courage to deal with the real problem in Philadelphia? Or will he stick to the script ... and blame NRA members while career criminals rule the City of Brotherly Love?
|
-
|
If people only read the papers or watched the news, they'd think the NRA is a bunch of guys in suits, a faceless bunch known as the "gun lobby."
But you and I know better. You know we're family. And here's a story that proves it.
Fritz Rundell was the auctioneer at the Chafee County, Colorado, Friends of the NRA banquet the other night ... when he got a last-minute item to auction. The Friends of the NRA committee asked him to auction one more firearm, with the proceeds to help pay the medical bills for Cody Buffalo — Fritz Rundell's grandson.
They didn't have to offer the gun for auction, but they did. Those in attendance didn't have to bid, but they did. And let me tell you, the final bid for that gun was five thousand dollars - plus another five hundred dollars the crowd donated to help with medical expenses for Fritz's grandson.
That young man, Cody Buffalo, was recently diagnosed with lymphoma. I know he's in the hearts and prayers of all NRA members who've heard this story.
And even if nobody in the national media ever reports the story of what happened at the Chafee County Friends dinner ... you and I know that we are the NRA, and we're there for each other, just like family should be.
|
-
How much is freedom worth to you? For Derek Hoskins, freedom is worth at least $650 each month. That's how much he pays for gas so he doesn't have to live in his native state of Massachusetts. Hoskins couldn't stand the gun laws in the state, so he moved to New Hampshire.
And he's not alone.
The Boston Globe reports the state has lost more than 300,000 residents this decade, and one in three people born in the state no longer live there. The only reason the state has seen a modest population increase is because of the number of immigrants who have moved in. The anti-gun and anti-freedom policies of the state are not only driving people away, they're putting the state in the position of not being able to afford its Nanny State mandates.
The cradle of liberty is digging its own grave.
Will the political leaders in Massachusetts realize the harm their policies are visiting upon their state before it's too late?
Or will they continue to advance more government and less freedom?
|
-
|
Gun owners have become experts at spotting politicians pretending to be Second Amendment supporters.
We've seen Al Gore and John Kerry go through the posing and posturing. We've seen it from Claire McCaskill in Missouri.
And of course, we're seeing it from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton right now. The fact that the Democratic presidential candidates are trying to run as pro-Second Amendment candidates isn't surprising. But that they're trying to pull off this charade during the primary campaign is something new.
Usually the gun-control candidate waits until the general election to pull the wool over the eyes of gun owners. Not this year. Obama and Clinton haven't been courting the support of the Brady Campaign, at least not publicly. Instead they are engaged in a contest, each trying to persuade gun owners that they and they alone can protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
It would be funny if it weren't so insulting. It would be funny if the stakes weren't so high. With the White House and our freedoms on the line, it's no laughing matter.
|
-
Scotland has had a gun ban in place for a decade now. Guess what? According to a Scottish newspaper, "Cases of attempted murder involving firearms [are] almost three times that of a decade ago." That's right. Ten years after a gun ban was put in place, crimes involving firearms have increased, not decreased.
Add Scotland to the list of places that have implemented gun bans, only to see things get worse. It's the same story in England, where news reports last month say gun-related crime continued to climb in 2007. In fact, the shadow home secretary says violent crime has doubled during the time Labour's been in power.
Remember these figures the next time someone says that a gun ban would make us all safer. It doesn't matter if you're talking about cities like Chicago, federal districts like Washington, D.C., or entire countries like England or Scotland. Gun bans don't reduce crime. They only empower the criminals.
|
-
|
An amazing story is about to take place in Louisville, Kentucky. Tens of thousands of Americans will gather to celebrate their freedom, love of country, and devotion to the ideals upon which this great nation was founded. They will arrive dedicated and leave motivated.
They will hear tales of heroism and of everyday activism. They'll learn about the rifles carried by their fathers and grandfathers in World War II, and they'll learn how they can protect themselves against violent attackers. They'll meet celebrities and political candidates, and they'll arrive back home having made new friends from all walks of life.
The mainstream media will cover the NRA Annual Meetings in Louisville. But I doubt they'll capture our passion and dedication to the Second Amendment. They'll downplay the importance of our gathering, but that's their mistake. You can bet the politicians will be paying attention to us in Louisville, and you better believe we're going to send them a message loud and clear!
|
-
|
Politicians in Albany, New York, are keeping up their anti-gun ways. Their "task force on gun violence" is meeting to come up with new gun control laws, even when 80 percent of the violent crime in Albany doesn't involve guns at all.
Doesn't it make more sense for politicians to focus on people committing violent crime, instead of guns? Of course it does - if the politicians are really serious about making Albany safer.
But they're more interested in getting headlines than providing solutions.
And it's not just Albany. In Schenectady, New York, officials set up an "amnesty" program for violent criminals to turn in guns risk-free. Something tells me this will be as popular as Boston's "Safe Homes Initiative," which asked residents to volunteer to let police search their homes for illegally possessed firearms. More than a month after the program began, not one resident of Boston has volunteered.
These "feel-good" programs may generate news, and they may make civic leaders feel like they're making a difference, but they don't do anything to reduce violent crime. They're a waste of time and resources, demonizing all firearms and all gun owners while giving the violent criminals a pass.
That ought to make every voter in Albany and Schenectady and Boston fighting mad.
|
-
The tragic death of Philadelphia police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski is being used for shameless pandering by politicians and pundits in Philly.
Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell have used Sgt. Liczbinski's murder to call for more gun control. Specifically, they're calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles like the one the career criminal used against the veteran of the police force.
Columnists like Jill Porter use a senseless killing to chide gun owners for failing to support gun-control measures that won't make Philadelphia one bit safer.
You don't hear Nutter, Rendell or Porter mention the extensive criminal history of Howard Cain, the man who killed Sgt. Liczbinski. You don't hear them mention his long rap sheet, or the fact that he should have been in prison, not out on the streets to commit armed robberies and murder.
About a decade ago, Howard Cain was sentenced to 18 years behind bars. In spite of his criminal record, he got probation the first time he was eligible. Halfway into his 18-year sentence, he was back on the streets. The gun-control crowd is trying to say that a semi-auto ban would have somehow prevented Cain from obtaining a gun. But Cain was already subject to his own personal gun ban. As a convicted felon, it was illegal for him to own one bullet, much less a firearm. But to a guy like Cain, laws are meant for other people to obey. That's why he should have been behind bars.
You can't make a city safer by banning firearms. Ask the residents of Washington, D.C., how well that's worked out. If you want to improve the safety of residents in Philadelphia, it's going to take time and money. Fully staff the police department. Make sure that those violent criminals on parole are being supervised. Go into the schools with anti-gang programs. Reach children before it's too late. And fully prosecute the gang members and drug dealers who are turning Philadelphia into their own personal killing fields. No plea bargains. No sweet deals. Throw the book at bad guys who've decided to prey on good people.
Until the politicians decide to go after those responsible for the violence on their streets, nothing will change. The people of Philadelphia should ask themselves why their elected leaders are trying so hard to paint gun owners as the scapegoat instead of doing what they truly know would make their citizens safer.
|
-
Barack Obama just can't escape the gun issue. As gang violence continues to plague Chicago, the senator sat down with the Chicago Sun-Times to talk about guns and gun control.
Obama wouldn't say how he feels about the legality of Chicago's ban on handguns, and he wouldn't give an opinion on the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, either. He did say that it's clear the bans aren't working, but still expressed his belief that these cities should be able to pass and enforce any gun-control law they want.
Obama also displayed an amazing lack of information about the Tiahrt Amendment, claiming it blocks ATF from sharing gun-tracing information with local authorities. As I've pointed out before, the reason the Tiahrt Amendment became law back in 2003 was the lawsuit filed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Back in the 1990s, Daley wanted access to ATF crime trace data from outside of Chicago, and he wanted to try to use that information to sue gun manufacturers and dealers. The Clinton-era ATF blocked the release of the information, and law enforcement agencies around the country begged the federal government to keep this information in the hands of law enforcement only. The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't do anything to stop law enforcement from getting access to these records. It only blocks the public and grandstanding politicians from trying to use these sensitive law-enforcement tools for their own purposes.
Senator Obama says he doesn't like empty rhetoric. But that's all we hear from the senator when it comes to the Second Amendment. His attempts to pander to gun owners by expressing vague support for the Second Amendment won't fly. Not when his legislative record is littered with votes against the Second Amendment and for more gun control.
|
-
In a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Barack Obama once again expressed his opposition to Right-to-Carry laws. That's not surprising. After all, Obama is a politician from one of two states in the union without any Right-to-Carry law on the books. But when Senator Obama says he hasn't seen any evidence that Right-to-Carry laws "make anyone safer," I have to say to Barack Obama: You're not looking hard enough.
Senator, meet Charles Todd, a Right-to-Carry holder from Memphis who defended himself against an armed carjacker last week.
Senator, meet Jane Downey, a Right-to-Carry holder who defended herself against an intruder in her sister's home earlier this month.
Senator, meet James Spiers, a Right-to-Carry holder and pizza delivery driver. Spiers was just trying to do his job when he was robbed late last month. With a gun held to his head by the criminal, Spiers shot and wounded his attacker. The single father of a ten-year-old girl was fired from Pizza Hut for violating company policy by legally carrying his firearm. Would you prefer, senator, that Mr. Spiers not have had his gun? Would you like to explain to his daughter why Right-to-Carry doesn't work?
The simple fact is that 40 states have "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry laws on the books. There are millions of armed citizens in this country, and if they were a problem, we'd know about it. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show a decrease in crime after Right-to-Carry laws are passed.
Barack Obama's opposition to Right-to-Carry isn't based on logic or reason. It's just the knee-jerk emotional response of an anti-gun politician. But his knee-jerk emotional response, if put into law, would make us all less safe and less free.
|
-
|
In a few months, the members of the U.S. Olympic Shooting Team will head to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The host country is expected to provide stiff competition for our men and women. But did you know that the Chinese shooters stand to make millions if they win five gold medals?
Chinese state-run media have reported that a company that makes an alcoholic drink called baijiu have promised the team more than ten million dollars if they capture at least five medals. In a country where the average income is just over $2000 a year, that's quite a payday.
Our own shooters don't stand to make millions if they bring home some gold, but they'll be fierce competitors nonetheless. They're representing the home of liberty and freedom, and they don't need to be bribed with the promise of riches to do their best.
|
-
|
Animal rights extremists are trying to invade classrooms in Washington, D.C.
With the passage of the "Animal Protection Amendment Act," they'd be able to go into schools and indoctrinate children with their bizarre notion of “humane education.”
The bill would require the D.C. Department of Education provide such instruction. It would also get rid of the phrase "animal owner" in the District of Columbia. No longer would you own a dog or a cat. Now you'd be their "animal guardian."
It's easy to dismiss these attempts at indoctrination as silly. But the animal rights extremists are serious. They want to change the way you think, the words you use, and the way you live to fit into their agenda. And they won't stop until they get their way.
|
|
|
|