|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
August 2008 - Posts
-
|
Obama seems proud of his elitist position on firearms. And it's a position based on confusing the voter. While gun owners waited for the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case, Obama couldn't give us his opinion. He said he hadn't read any of the briefs filed in the case. Obama claimed he didn't take positions on pending cases. Too bad he forgot that he in fact signed on to an amicus brief on another matter before the Supreme Court.
After the Heller decision came down, Obama claimed the Court had sided with him. The Supreme Court decision struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, and has opened the door to challenges across the country, including in Obama's home city of Chicago. If Obama truly agrees with the Supreme Court, why has he never done a thing to help Chicago residents who've been stripped of their Second Amendment rights?
Obama has stated that Right-to-Carry makes society more dangerous, despite overwhelming evidence that Right-to-Carry lowers crime rates. He's supported bans on handguns, bans on semi-automatic firearms, and bans on gun stores within five miles of a school or a park. And he seems pretty proud of those positions. Which leads me to believe when Obama claims to be pro Second Amendment, he's simply being hypocritical and not straight forward.
|
-
The Obama/Biden ticket is the most anti-gun presidential campaign in recent memory. In Obama, you have a former board member of the Joyce Foundation who steered millions of dollars towards gun-control groups. He's touted his support for bans on handguns and a 500 percent increase on taxes for guns and ammunition, and has called for bans on ammunition (including some of the most popular hunting ammunition).
His running mate, Joe Biden, is a career anti-gun politician. Remember 1994? Remember those dark days when the Clinton administration and their cronies in Congress banned semi-automatic firearms based entirely on cosmetic features? Guess who was one of those most responsible for that gun ban? None other than Joe Biden.
Biden has consistently voted against your Second Amendment rights as a U.S. senator, and Obama's made it clear that his vision of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is meaningless. This pair, if elected, would be the biggest threat to your firearm freedoms in decades, and that's with the recent decision in the Heller case. We can't afford to stay home on Election Day, and we can't afford to stay silent between now and then. It's our job to speak up and speak out about the Obama/Biden ticket so that every gun owner is aware of what's at stake ... nothing less than the continued exercise of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
|
-
Barack Obama has a problem with openness. The candidate of "hope and change" seems to be hoping that if reporters can't get access to records from his past,
they'll change their mind and leave it alone.
The good news for gun owners is that we do have access to his anti-gun record, and we're making it public. NRA-ILA has a whole section of its website devoted to telling the truth about Obama's brutal attacks on your Second Amendment rights. You can find it at www.nraila.org/obama. Obama may be able to hide his paperwork from the press, but he can't hide his record from gun owners.
|
-
Residents of Vallejo, California, are facing a public safety crisis right now. The cityls declared bankruptcy, and crime is rising. Police are leaving the force for better-paying jobs in other cities, and there’s no real solution in sight.
It wouldn't solve every problem facing the local leaders in Vallejo, but I think Solano County, where Vallejo is located, should treat concealed-carry as "Shall-Issue," rather than keeping the very restrictive policies that are currently in place. Residents of Vallejo have the same right to self-defense as every other American, and with the exodus of police officers, it's more important than ever that those citizens have the tools to defend themselves and their families.
|
-
I'm still asking good Democrats to oppose the proposed Democratic platform, at least where it concerns our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."
Obama's supporters are prepared to end private transactions of firearms and to ban entire classes of firearms in the name of "common sense." They are prepared to tell residents of Chicago that they do not possess the same inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that their fellow Americans in Cheyenne enjoy. Yet they tell us the Second Amendment is "an important part of the American tradition."
It's all well and good to say that states have powers reserved to them. It is an outrage to suggest the role of state legislatures is to fight over the crumbs that are left after the federal government has taken away as much of your rights as it deems "reasonable." Chicago and Cheyenne may indeed require different laws dealing with traffic, or zoning for skyscrapers, and so on. But laws that say different Americans have different rights? That's not federalism, that's feudalism.
We have a major political party treating one of our constitutional rights like it is just some relic of history, to be preserved on paper but serving no practical purpose today. If this is how we treat the Second, how long before we treat the First, or the Fourth, or the Fourteenth the same way?
The Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is a right "guaranteed to all Americans." It is inconceivable that a major political party would choose to believe that statement is false.
|
-
In my last post, I pointed out that the Democrats are taking their cues from Barack Obama when it comes to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Here's what the party bigwigs write on Page 43 of the proposed Democratic platform:
"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."
So the Second Amendment is now "an important part of the American tradition," subject to as many rules and regulations as they deem "reasonable"?
No! It is not merely tradition. It is our birthright! Inked in the blood of our forefathers, who fought and died at Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and Trenton, Brandywine and Yorktown, so that their descendents could enjoy the natural rights of man, as well as the privileges of a free nation.
How do the authors of the Democratic platform propose to preserve our right when what they propose would destroy it? Where is their promised preservation? The only ideas laid out are gun-control efforts! This isn't even deceit. This is a bold promise to undo rights given by God and affirmed by the Court. In fact, where is the mention of the Heller decision in the Democratic platform? Instead of celebrating an affirmation of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the writers of the Democratic platform treat the Court's decision as something best not discussed in polite company.
For this reason, I believe it is the solemn duty of every Democrat to oppose this part of the Democratic platform. This document is not the final draft of the Democratic platform. Will the party officials listen to the voice of We the People, or will they bow before Senator Obama instead? Will they choose the opinion of one man over the rights of millions? Whose voice is louder, Barack Obama's or the American people's?
|
-
Barack Obama has already left his mark on the Democratic Party, if not the United States. Page 43 of the proposed Democratic platform marks the national party's acquiescence to Senator Obama's view of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."
Obama used the "Chicago/Cheyenne" reference as recently as June, and this plank of the platform is almost an exact quote of Obama's double-talk when it comes to the Second Amendment. I know that parties rally around their candidate, but not at the expense of our inalienable rights. In my next post, I'll take a deeper look at what this plank in the Democratic platform really means.
|
-
Congratulations to the trustees of the Harrold Independent School District in Texas, who recently approved a policy that says teachers and staff who are licensed Right-to-Carry holders can exercise that right while they're at work.
Superintendent David Thweatt says the district's school building is about a half-hour drive from the local sheriff's office, and that leaves students and faculty defenseless.
Thweatt also took issue with "gun-free zones," telling the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog."
Isn't it great to see common sense from one of our educators? There's no doubt in my mind that the students of Harrold ISD are safer today than they were last school year, and that's something everyone should be proud of.
|
-
The animal rights terrorists have struck again. This time, they firebombed the home and car of two researchers at UC-Santa Cruz in California.
According to Inside Higher Ed, one researcher (who works with mice) had to help his children climb down a ladder from the second story of their home to escape after the firebomb exploded. And the site notes that back in February, masked animal rights terrorists broke into a professor's home during a birthday party for the teacher's daughter.
This is terrorism, pure and simple. And they aren't just targeting medical researchers. They've gone after hunters before, and I'm sure they'll target us again.
The FBI's now investigating the attacks at UC-Santa Cruz. I hope they catch these animal rights terrorists, and when they do, I hope they throw the book at them. Any criminal willing to take a human life for a lab rat ought to be treated like one—in prison for life.
|
-
|
"Try me boy, you better not/
Shawty and I'm very hot/
Toting forty cap, forty five nine's every glock/
Blow you up in that very spot you standing in/
Then vanishing/
Undo this mañana then, throw away this can and then/
Back to poppin' mo and blow and dro and money handlin'"
-T.I. "Hands Up"
Do these sound like the lyrics of someone who should be welcomed with open arms by D.C. politicians? It's unbelievable, but it's true. D.C. Councilwoman Yvette Alexander praised the rapper T.I. when he arrived in our nation's capitol as part of the "Respect My Vote" campaign.
Alexander told a local radio station that "we need the persons who really reach out to our young people in the community to let them know that voting is necessary, voting is cool, and your voice and your vote counts."
But Alexander didn't tell that radio station that T.I. is a convicted felon who has forfeited his right to vote because of his convictions for illegally buying machine guns, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and other charges. In a city plagued by violent crime, law-abiding gun owners are being vilified daily, but this guy is welcomed with open arms? Do you think this might be part of the reason why crime is so rampant in Washington, D.C.?
|
-
|
Now that a judge has upheld Florida's new law extending Right-to-Carry to employees who wish to leave their lawfully owned firearms in their locked cars while at work, you can expect opponents of the measure to appeal the decision. After all, these same groups are the ones who filed suit to begin with. I guess they just can't bear to see their employees travel to and from work while exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
I expect we'll see Disney, Universal Studios and Georgia Pacific continue to claim that the law doesn't apply to them, despite the fact that legislators who voted for (and wrote) the measure say they never intended to exempt these businesses. It's up to the attorney general in Florida to ensure that these businesses are held to the same standard as everyone else in the state.
But the judge's decision in this case means that Right-to-Carry holders won't be disarmed by their employers, and that's a huge victory. Floridians can take heart that the court system is working, and that the NRA and the Unified Sportsmen of Florida will remain constantly vigilant in guarding your Second Amendment rights in the Sunshine State.
|
|
|
|