The 2nd Amendment-Its Not About Duck Hunting

 

Very powerful testimony from a victim of random gun violence comitted by a madman.

 

I'll Support Your Gun Ban; But I Have Conditions

1. All radical elements of islam will be immediately deported. All mosques will be closed and the buildings renovated for mental health centers. CAIR will be disbanded and outlawed. The Muslim Brotherhood will be escorted to the docks and given the choice of boarding a ship or walking off the end. All representatives from countries with islam as the primary form of government will be escorted to the docks and given the same choice.

2. All extremist groups will be outlawed. If your group has called for the death of an American citizen or your group has created stress in another American citizen's life through direct action, you're disbanded. No more Black Panthers, no more Westboro Cult, no more La Raza.

3. I want a written gaurantee that there will never be another beating, stabbing, shooting, liquor store, convenience store or bank robbery ever again. That gaurantee will come with hefty penalties if violated.

4. I want a written gaurantee that there will never be another domestic violence incident, anywhere in America, ever again. Gaurantee that there will never be another abused wife or child anywhere, ever. That one comes with a hefty penalty for non-compliance as well.

5. All gangs, drug, ethinic, or street, will be disbanded.

6. All criminal elements will surrender their weapons before the gun ban is enacted.

Those are my conditions for my support of your gun ban. They are non-negotiable and binding. Make them happen and you will have to shove me out of the way to get in front of me in line to sign the papers.

Whats The Fastest Way To Get People Off One Tragedy?

Create another even more tragic incident, preferably one involving lots of dead children so we'll have lots of handwringing and Oh My God how could this happen and we have to do something about these bad old guns so lets ban all the guns and this will never ever never happen again.

Hillary conveniently falls down and forgets how to use her Clapper for anything other than a scapegoat. "Help I've fallen and I can't tell the truth about Benghazi".

Negroes with guns - HUMAN EVENTS

Remember it was Bull Connor, a Democrat, who turned the dogs and hoses on the Freedom Riders.

Negroes with guns - HUMAN EVENTS

We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country's history.

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.

/snip

In the preface to "Negroes With Guns," ...the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams [A] World War II Marine veteran, writes: "I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense -- and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence."

Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK. But wherever the truth lies in that case, gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense.

Click here to continue reading Ann Coulter's column

House Dems Push Race and Gun Laws In Wake of Trayvon

House Dems Push Race and Gun Laws In Wake of Trayvon

That pink cowboy hat is very irritating. I can't explain it, but I have this irresistable urge to snatch it off her racist head and do the Mexican Hat Dance with it. Although this might have something to do with it:


Its always some racist with a gun who kills blacks. Unfortunately, I can't dispute that conclusion. Black street thugs are racist; blacks account for more black on black homicide than any other race. Get the guns out of the hands of the racist black thugs and your problem is almost solved.

House Democrats are moving to pass gun control and race-based legislation in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, The Hill reports today. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus want to end “Stand Your Ground” laws – laws designed to allow people to defend themselves rather than running when threatened with serious bodily harm. They have sponsored a resolution claiming that the Martin killing was a “crime,” suggesting that “racial bias led to the use of deadly force,” and lamenting “the inconceivable fact that his killer remains free.” The evidence in the Martin case remains unclear, at best.

Of course there is more to read after the jump.

Open Letter to Joan Peterson of Common Gunsense

Edit: To those coming from Weer'ds, A Girl and Her Gun, and Jennifer's- Welcome! Pull up a chair and look around. ConcreteBob and I love visitors. And leave a comment! Say Hi!


January 8th was the anniversary of the Tuscon shooting. Anti-2nd Amendment gun control activists used that date to hold candle light vigils for the victims of "gun violence." Of course, we all know that there are victims of MANY forms of violence.

We decided, guided by Weer'd Beard, of Weer'd World, to hold our own vigils, showing candles AND firearms or other weapons of defense, in honor of victims of ALL violence. We did this to honor the victims and to show that one does NOT have to be defenseless.

Joan, of Common Gunsense, is appalled by the reaction of the 2nd Amendment supporters to the vigil. She states,

"Here is a message to the pro gun extremists who have mocked the candlelight vigils. Have you no shame?"

Her list of comments taken from pro-2nd Amendment blogs and comments are supposed to demonstrate our horribleness.

Go. Take a look. I'll wait.

There....that wasn't so bad. The first two mention self defense and honor victims. The third is short and sweet:

"Sorry Joan, we show respect for the victims, you dance in their blood."

A little harsh. But what do you say about activists that want to disarm people, make them defenseless, and then use their victimhood as propaganda to push a political agenda? Remember, the vigils were ONLY about the victims of GUN VIOLENCE. All other violence need not apply. Self defense was ignored, even derided as "more shootings."

Then she posted the supposed mean commenters. They said mean things about HER and the activists. But mainly her. I mean....Joan's blog IS about political activism. Its right there on her side bar: "My blog is intended to change public opinion about the gun debate"

What else are we to make of her intended vigils except as a political stunt? She even intoned the name of Representative Giffords, injured in Tuscon. Rep. Giffords is a gun owner and apparent 2nd Amendment supporter.

Jennifer, of In Jennifer's Head, wrote a wonderful blog post. In it, she asks Joan, "Where's the Candle for Lydia?"

Joan's hypocritical reply on her blog (emphasis mine):

"So Jennifer thinks no one would light a candle for Lydia? Who says? Why didn't Jennifer come to one of our vigils and light a candle for Lydia? Because she would rather attack the vigils which were in honor and memory of shooting victims. So, Jennifer-sorry you missed our vigils. We would welcome you.

Except for one small detail. Who says? JOAN SAID. No one DID light a candle for Lydia at the victim vigils by your activists because they were only concerned about the politically correct victims of "gun violence. See.....Lydia was not attacked by someone with a gun. And Lydia, not having a gun, was horrible injured. Of course, gun control activists feel that not having a gun is for the better.

Furthermore, Joan continually states that we gun-rights people attacked the victims and have threatened her. Her posts show no such thing. But let's take a look at the evidence.

First there's my post: Light A Candle to Hold Back the Darkness
My comment with pic:

Tonight, many gun control groups are holding candle lit vigils to honor the victims of "gun violence."
As those of us in the reality based world know, one needs more than a candle for protection. And we refuse to become defenseless.

And so, we gun bloggers are also lighting candles...in honor of those damaged by violence, ANY VIOLENCE. "Gun violence" is a political canard. Guns protect innocent lives.

Carry yours.

Then there is Weer'd's: Do More Than Just Light a Candle

Other than links and pics, there are NO political statements attacking ANYONE on this page.

Let's examine the links, as described by Weer'd, to avoid confusion:

1) Jay (aka MArooned) He posted other pics and links, no attacks. I love the candle.
2) North Not even harsh comments....
3) Erin who links to other respectful blogs, most especially Miguel (also linked on Weer'd's post.) at GunFreeZone, who liit a candle for more victims ignored by the gun control activists. Brigid, too, deserves special mention for wonderful writing. Still....no attacks.
4) Jeffersonian is short and sweet in his post. There's no room for attacks.
5) McThag has three posts up. The only harsh words are for the Navy's choice in attack aircraft in unrelated posts.
6) Bryan Strawser should be thanked by Joan for spreading news about her blog and her vigils.
7) Jack Nope. Very respectful.
8) Knitebane Same.
9) Shy Wolf Patriotic and respectful. Even applauds the vigils against "gun violence."
10) Lokidude delivers. Yet, unsurprisingly, also respectfully.
11) Then there is A Girl and Her Gun. Joan's anti-thesis. A victim that demands a gun. Joan points out comments by her that are supposed to be "harsh." Apparently she's the wrong kind of victim. And yet....at the blog....everything is STILL respectful and Gabby Gifford's neighbor, HER NEIGHBOR, comments positively about buying a firearm.
12) ThotPD Irreverent! Oh no!....oh, wait. He's making fun of Weer'd. Never mind.
13) MaddMedic Emphatic. But polite.


Wow. All that posting. Not a single attack against victims or gun control activists. Not even a harsh word. Or snark. Which, if you are familiar with gun bloggers is a freaking miracle.

Let's see.....Maybe its hidden in Weer'd comments...

Nope. Just more links to more memorials. And links to the CSGV on Facebook to show the reactions of the gun control fanatics. THE OVERWHELMING CONSISTENT THREAD IS THE TOTAL LACK OF ANY MENTION OF YOU. You appear to be upset because we ignored you, mostly, and joined "your" vigil, and did it our way.

Joan Peterson...without proof, without evidence, you slander good people. And yet you call us shameless? You have the outright, shameless, unmitigated, GALL to insult people that actually JOINED you in honoring victims of violence BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO IT IN YOUR APPROVED MANNER?

Apparently, the vigils were all about..... you.

Charles "Chuckie" Schumer on Gun Control

‘Common sense’ gun-control debate lasts less time than it takes to reload a 9mm --

It didn’t take long after the Tucson shootings for New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to propose sweeping new gun-control legislation. It’s supposed to “strengthen” background checks, but as The Daily Caller reports, it'll more likely piss off anyone who’s never actually been found guilty in a court of law. “The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 would greatly expand the definition of those legally prohibited from owning firearms to include anyone who’s ever been arrested — even if never convicted or found guilty — for drug possession within a five-year period.” Alleged gunman Jared Lee Loughner admitted to smoking weed. According to Schumer’s “rational gun-control,” ergo, that means anyone arrested for doing drugs, for that bong that wasn’t actually yours or for Tweeting that you were going to get “ripped” tonight, is tantamount to planning a psychotic bloodbath. Everyone agrees that only "law-abiding" citizens should have guns, but who would have thought Schumer would try to change the definition of “law-abiding.”

President Obama's Opening Shot to Appear "Reasonable "

President Obama has finally spoken out on gun control. He wants "common sense" regulations that no one could "reasonably" disagree with. He assures us that he SUPPORTS the individual right to keep and bear arms. BUT.......he is advocating the "common sense" pancea du jour, background checks on private sales. Of course, he doesn't describe it that way. He says "gun sellers" vs "gun dealers." Its the "gun show loophole" yet again. Gun control groups are STILL describing private sellers as unlicensed dealers.

He quietly placed his op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star. It was very well written, very smooth, in fact. Unless you were familiar with the language of gun control you would miss his carefully worded phrases that changes gun-control groups into "gun safety" groups, mentions "reasonable" restrictions without giving details on what's reasonable about his ideas, and implies that its those "unreasonable" gun owners that might be the problem.

First he scares you and reminds you of tragedy - the recent shooting in Tuscon. And, of course he outright lies. That's par for the course.....

...Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.

Apparently he was playing golf those days when a madman's actions were blamed on "rightwing rhetoric" or Sarah Palin, or talk radio, or any number of conservative elements by the liberal media and political class. In other words, his side of the aisle.

He describes Loughner as "a man our Army rejected as unfit for service," "unstable" and "bent on violence" and that he was able to easily buy a gun. Yet, he leaves out that the background check failed because the local law enforcement did not do THEIR job nor the Army theirs. The Sheriff's department knew of his propensity for violence and the Army knew that Loughner admitted to using drugs. Neither passed that information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. There was nothing to report. His panacea of background checks failed. In Virginia, we had a similar problem with Cho, the Virginia Tech killer. He was even sent before a judge but they were unwilling to commit him. And yet he wants more of them.....

President Obama, though trying to appear as a neutral participant, subtlety drives a point that gun owners are the obstructionists to preventing more killings.

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.

He paints gun owners as either being ignorant or insensitive to the reality of gun violence immediately after stating that protection is a viable need to own weapons. That reality is, of course, why 2nd Amendment supporters advocate the easing of gun restrictions across the nation so that law abiding citizens are able to arm themselves.

I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.

The only stalemate in regards to 2nd Amendment rights and true commonsense gun laws is in the minds of gun control groups. It is they that feel its "impossible to get to where we need to go as a country." Freedom is expanding across the nation. Gun carry laws are easing everywhere. Citizens are again being treated as free people, not subjects. It is the gun control groups, defeated by the Heller case of their dream to ban firearms, that have turned to the shibboleth of "commonsense gun laws" without stating who determines the meaning of "commonsense."

I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.

Again, he implies that its the gun owners that need to change OUR outlook, that WE might not agree that criminals and guns shouldn't mix. He implies that HIS ideas are the "common sense" ideas. Neither Cho nor Loughner had a record of any sort. What does he propose to do to improve the background check to stop them from getting guns? Privacy laws restrict mental health records from being used. If law enforcement agencies and the judiciary don't do what is necessary, dangerous people will not be put on the list. Remember, to deprive someone of a right, there must be due process.

The President seeks to drive a wedge between the 2nd Amendment advocates and the general populace that don't get into the trenches fighting the gun control crowd. His statements are posed in such a way as to imply that only "unreasonable" people would disagree with his stated improvements on the background check.

Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

Those "most gun owners" don't follow 2nd Amendment politics. They don't follow the propaganda put out by the Violence Policy Center, The Brady Campaign, etc. They ALL advocate "commonsense" gun laws. Yet they can't define a commonsense gun in debate without losing the argument. The Brady Campaign's idea of "commonsense" gun restrictions include licensing and registration of firearms, useless magazine size restrictions, etc. And where there is registration, there is ALWAYS confiscation. So, no President Obama, we do know that "commonsense" is a code word for confiscation. These comments at Common Gunsense, a blog run by Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign board member, are the perfect example of the evasiveness of the gun control crowd and the attempts by 2nd Amendment supporters to shed light on the subject. Some quotes by Joan Peterson, who has stated that gun control groups don't want to take our guns, just enact some common sense laws. There is, apparently, no 2nd Amendment restriction that she does not like.

In answer to this comment:

If I may point out, in the UK where handguns are banned, semi automatics are banned, private gun owners are licensed and registered, purchase of a firearm must require "proof of need" and permission from the govt, they are still calling for more restrictions. And they always call those restrictions "reasonable" and "common sense." Are there any gun laws which some on your side wish for that you, personally, would find unreasonable?

she replied: (emphasis mine)

Good for the UK. I'm all for it. I find the gun laws passed allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrak unreasonable. I find Shall Issue CCW laws unreasonable. I find state laws that do not require background checks or training in order to get a permit unreasonable. I find the legal sale of guns to anyone without a background check unreasonable- that is a part of the Brady Law that is unreasonable.

And that's just one reply to a comment on one post.

Sound familiar? This op-ed is just the ....opening shot......of President Obama's attempt to appear a moderate on gun control and to advance his agenda without ruing his chances for 2012.

For Your Reading Enjoyment

Democrat Readies Gun Control Bill in Wake of Arizona Massacre

The Left's Cynical Exploitation of the Tucson Tragedy

Dem Planning Bill that Would Outlaw 'Threatening' Lawmakers

Media Covering Up Alleged Shooter's Liberal Politics?

Journalists Urged Caution After Ft. Hood, Now Race to Blame Palin

Where's the Celebration?

D.C. homicides fall 9% in 2010 to 131, lowest toll since '63
PG also down; Montgomery up

Two years after Heller, D.C. posts lowest murder rate in half-century -- In fact, two years after District residents had their right to keep and bear arms restored by the Supreme Court, the homicide rate for Washington, D.C., was the lowest it's been in half a century.

"The District finished 2010 with 131 homicides — a 9 percent reduction from 2009 and the lowest number of killings in the nation's capital since 1963," reports the Washington Times. "The drop, from 143 killings, was the second straight decline and the seventh time in the last 10 years that the city once referred to as the 'murder capital' of the U.S. recorded fewer than 200 homicides."

Does correlation imply causation? Not always, especially considering that the bureaucratic iron maiden engineered by Mayor Fenty and MPD Chief Cathy Lanier has made it quite difficult for law-abiding citizens to own guns. But it helps to remember the position taken by the Brady Center the day the Heller decision was announced: "After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day." Perhaps: But fewer of those deaths are occurring in a city that once saw 482 murders in a year. That's progress!

Make A Trip To Starbucks & Buy Something

We can show Starbucks we appreciate their standing up to the anti-gun crowd.

Starbucks: Leave us out of concealed-weapons debate

SEATTLE — Coffee chain Starbucks Corp. is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it's legal and said it does not want to be put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.

The company's statement, issued Wednesday, stems from recent campaign by some gun owners, who have walked into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. Gun control advocates have protested.

The fight began heating up in January in Northern California and has since spread to other states and other companies, bolstered by the pro-gun group OpenCarry.org.

We Have A Poll That Needs Attention

Down the page on the right.

Should more controls be placed on gun ownership?

Current totals:

Yes 25%
Probably 5%
No 68%
Unsure 2%

Total votes 1066

DCExaminer Morrning Email Blast

Byron York - Obama's latest homeland security fiasco
The Southers nomination has become politically supercharged amid concerns over airport security after the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he'll ram the nomination through when lawmakers return to work on Jan. 20. Maybe he will. But not if a growing number of GOP senators have anything to say about it.

Mark Hemingway - Is Palin running in 2012? Signs point to yes
Governor Sarah Palin announced today that she will speak to the 2010 Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans.

Julie Mason - Obama budget boss embroiled in unlikely sex scandal
Part of what makes the story a head scratcher is the identity of the Lothario -- a lanky, bespectacled number cruncher with a nasal voice who wears two BlackBerries clipped to his belt. Orszag is an unlikely figure to inspire the cable news headline "Budget Baby Mama Drama," which appeared on MSNBC.

Mark Hemingway - Guantanamo Prisoners: We want to stay in Guantanamo
Appararently lawyers for Guantanamo detainees want to keep their clients in Guantanamo, rather than transfer them to the Obama administration's proposed new prison in Illinois

Susan Ferrechio - Pelosi says she will not accept Senate health bill without changes
A massive conference call on health care legislation among the House Democratic Caucus ended Thursday afternoon with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., promising her rank-and-file members she plans to make changes to the final bill that will ensure more affordability and access.
Pelosi also told the 175 Democrats who participated in the call that despite some reports, a formal conference committee has not been ruled out for merging the House and Senate version.

More Stories
Democrats exiting the sinking ship? Part 14 (North Dakota)
Classy: NYT invokes suicide of Rep. Stupak's son to make point about gun control
Where's the outrage? Ask Monica.

Toronto proves the statement - Registration leads to Confiscation

One always hears that gun registration is for our own good. The anti-2nd Amendment people just want to let the cops know who owns what guns, just in case, ..... you know.... if the guns are stolen and/or used in a crime.

Of course, all of this is unmitigated bull. Gun registration is the precursor to gun confiscation. Always. Every Single time. The police in Toronto are seizing guns from private citizens that have either lapsed registrations or have been banned (as if one type of gun is more dangerous than another)

"They used to be legal firearms, but now they're either unregistered or outright banned, and they're wanted by police before there's a chance burglars put them in Toronto's underground and underworld markets."

"What we believe is that legal handgun owners are not dangerous individuals, but we know from experience that their firearms can become extremely dangerous when they get into the hands of criminals," Blair said.

Of course, being registered magically protected the weapons from theft. And now, the law abiding citizens of Toronto that just lost their firearms are defenseless against those "extremely dangerous" criminals firearms.

Do we want similar laws in the United States? Do we want similar laws in Virginia? No.
Thank God for the 2nd Amendment and those that defend it.

When its time to bury your weapons, its time to dig them up.

h/t Sharp as a Marble

Gun Grabbing Dhimmicrats

Gun Grabbing Dhimmicrats
This video is from CNN.

National Geographic drinking the Gun Control Kool-Aid

I watched this show when it aired and had the exact same thought. I just couldn't critique the show with any justice. The only reasonable example of the average gun owner presented was that of a local woman that lives in Chesterfield. I present the letter to National Geographic from Gun Owners of America.

National Geographic TV Takes Aim At Your Guns

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

National Geographic Channel ran a show last night entitled, "Guns In America." According to the program, there are millions of misguided gun owners across the nation. Why? Because your guns are supposedly more likely to harm you than to help you in an emergency.

"As a society, we're totally out of control with weapons," said one Philadelphia cop who was interviewed during the show. "You need to limit access that people have to these type of firearms."

That was the basic thrust of the program. National Geographic recited the usual worn-out factoids that are peddled by the Brady Campaign. It only cited anti-gun cops. And for every person who was filmed stating he or she believed in a right to own firearms for self-defense, the program would cite "facts" to prove that such a hope was misplaced.

Gun owners should let the President and CEO of National Geographic know that the channel should stick to showing pictures of kangaroos and foliage -- images that we normally attribute to National Geographic's magazine -- and keep his personal, anti-gun views to his private conversations around the Christmas dinner table.

The National Geographic Channel presents itself as an educational, unbiased alternative. But "Guns in America" was hardly unbiased, as can be seen by the following agenda items that were pushed during the program:

1. "Guns in America" would have you believe that the guns in your home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to protect you. This statistic can (surprise, surprise!) be found on the Brady Campaign website, but its source has been highly discredited. The factoid originates with Arthur Kellerman, who has generated multiple studies claiming that guns are a net liability.¹ But Kellerman has been found guilty of fudging his data, and even the National Academy of Sciences has stated that his "conclusions do not seem to follow" from his data.²

The truth of the matter is actually quite encouraging for gun owners. Anti-gun researchers for the Clinton Justice Department found that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense, which means that each year, firearms are used more than 50 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.³

Isn't that strange? You would think anti-gunners wouldn't mind citing a study that was commissioned by the Clinton Justice Department! Apparently, the results of the study didn't fit their agenda.

2. "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die by unintentional gunfire. The program would have viewers believe that a child dies by accidental gunfire, once every two days. But you can only reach that figure if you count violent-prone teens as "children."

In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that you feed them.⁴ Hmm, why doesn't National Geographic want to report on those killer peanuts?

3. "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many negative uses of guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth is quite the opposite (as guns are used at least 50 times more often to save life than take life). The program does start with a dramatization of a legitimate self-defense story with an actual 911 call playing in the background. But after that, every dramatization is about drive-by-shootings or cops being shot or gang-related warfare.

The lesson for the viewer is: Guns are bad.

4. "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun "authorities," thus leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes:

* Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self defense? -- 93% of law-enforcement said yes.⁵

* Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be limited to the purchase of no more than one firearm per month? -- 70.1% of law-enforcement said no.⁶

* Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected? -- 68.2% of law-enforcement said yes.⁷

It's bad enough that a liberal teacher's union controls the education of our kids in the public schools, and that many of them are being brainwashed with politically correct thinking. We don't need supposedly neutral programs like National Geographic peddling the Brady Campaign's favorite factoids to an unsuspecting public.

ACTION: Please contact Tim T. Kelly, the President and CEO of National Geographic Ventures (which includes their television division), and urge him to steer the NatGeo channel away from politics. If the National Geographic Channel can't run a balanced program -- where they use real statistics -- then they just need to stick to filming those cute little animals that helped make their magazine so famous.

You can go to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/contact to cut-and-paste the sample letter below into their webform. Since you will need to select a Topic, please choose "I have a complaint." And for "Department," we would suggest selecting "Factual Questions" or "General."

---- Pre-written letter ----

Dear Mr. Kelly:

I will think twice before ordering the National Geographic magazine, because I don't want to help you fund any more anti-gun propaganda. Your Explorer show entitled "Guns In America" -- which has run several times this month -- was heavily slanted to the gun control position. The show used fallacious statistics without rebutting them, all in an effort to demonize firearms.

For example, "Guns in America" falsely claimed that guns in the home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to serve as protection. That is simply not true. The author of this study, Arthur Kellerman, has been discredited many times (by groups such as the National Academy of Sciences), so it's shameful that your channel would even cite his work.

Second, "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die by unintentional gunfire. In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that you feed them. Can I expect to see a show in the near future highlighting the danger of feeding children?

Third, "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many negative uses of guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth is quite the opposite. According to statistics from the Clinton Justice Department in 1997, guns are used at least 50 times more often to save life than take life.

Finally, "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun "authorities," thus leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes. (Please see the poll results on the website for the National Association of Chiefs of Police.) Why were none of these authorities ever cited?

The National Geographic Society's purpose is "to increase and diffuse geographic knowledge while promoting the conservation of the world's cultural, historical, and natural resources." I would submit to you that pushing gun control is far afield from your stated purpose.

Sincerely,

--------------------------------

ENDNOTES:

¹ Arthur Kellerman has generated multiple studies that claim gun owners are more likely to be injured by their guns than to use those guns in self-defense. His results range from 3 to 22 to 43 times more likely to be injured by a gun in the home. His methodology has been debunked, however, many times over. (See endnote 2.)

² See http://www.gunowners.org/sk0701.htm . Also, see Charles F. Wellford, John Pepper, Carol Petrie, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004), p. 118.

³ See http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

⁴ See "Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)," Gun Control Fact Sheet (2004) at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

⁵ National Association of Chiefs of Police, 20th Annual Survey Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in the United States: 2008).

⁶ National Association of Chiefs of Police, 15th Annual Survey Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in the United States).

⁷ Ibid.

Renewal of the AWB

Update: On further investigation of H.R.6257 it appears that it was actually introduced last June and was referred to committee in July, well before the election. ( from Alphecca)


Obama has stated that he will reinvigorate the economy.
Well, he's been successful in one way, even prior to the Inauguration - gun sales.

Gun sales, as shown by a 15% increase in Background Checks, have skyrocketed. And that's just the sales through a dealer. The increase in private sales is unknown. But, I think that we can make an informed guess that sales are up.

The Richmond Gun Show had an increase of 1800 visitors. Some are buying handguns. Others are investing in eeeeevviiill "assault rifles" or, as informed persons know them, semi-automatic rifles. Why?

Because Obama has a history of banning guns. As does the Democratic Party. And one item in Obama's agenda is the re-introduction of the "Assault Weapons Ban," except this time they want to make it permanent, regardless of its logic, legality, or effectiveness.

But WAIT! It appears we don't have to fear an Obama Administration. The Democrats are not pushing for the AWB this year.

REPUBLICANS ARE! And the moderates wonder why we conservatives feel the need to purge the party of Repuplicans like this...

Here's the list of RINO's that are already kissing up to the Democrat powers to be:

H.R. 6257: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

Sponsor:
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]

(Rep. Kirk's office is 202-225-4835)

Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-07]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL] Contact
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ] DC 202-225-5361/New Jersey 908-757-7835
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT] Contact
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE] Contact

Why do we need enemies if we have friends like these? At least there are no Virginians on this list. It would be an interesting question to put to Senator Webb, however, since he is such a GREAT supporter of the 2nd Amendment. And its not worth calling Senator Warner....in my opinion, he'll vote in whatever way he feels will make him look good....

I'd like to see these idiots even DEFINE "assault weapon."

Here is the best definition yet:




h/t The Arsenal and RightWingNews
and Joe at NovaTownHallBlog

Its already started....UPDATED

Apparently, the Obamunists have discovered that their plans may not be welcome. Under their "Urban Policy" page, one finds: "The page you requested is not available right now."

And the page prior to it, labeled Agenda, has only this:

The Agenda

President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden have developed innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and to bring about the kind of change America needs.

The Obama Administration has a comprehensive and detailed agenda to carry out its policies. The principal priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.

Evidently, the Obama Administration doesn't want you to know what those plans are anymore....

Here is a pdf from NRAILA that was saved from the Google Cache.

The plans to take your guns is also gone.....

Here it is again, also from the NRAILA.

h/t Doug Ross at Directorblue.blogspot.com
h/t Of Arms and the Law

Gov Kaine: Background Checks on ALL Sales At Gun Shows

Governor Tim Kaine is, again, taking a stab at ending the dreaded “gun show ‘loophole.’”
He is set to introduce legislation that would require private persons selling guns at gun shows to perform a background check on a person they want to sell a firearm to.

Says Gov. Kaine: “It is long past time to apply existing Virginia law to every firearm sale at a gun show.[emphasis added.]” Kaine was “flanked” by “legislators, local law-enforcement officers and family members of Virginia Tech shooting victims at state police headquarters in Chesterfield Country.” His hope is to use public sympathy over the high-profile Virginia Tech shootings to collar and lead Virginians into further restrictions on their right to buy a firearm, even though the gun used by Seung-Hui Cho was not purchased at a gun show – he bought it at a gun shop – legally. A teary-eyed Kane said further; “I think people understand some things about how these loopholes can lead to horrible crimes that devastate families and devastate communities in a way that maybe they didn’t understand before.”

Think they aren’t trying to push this through? Ultra-liberal [state] Senator Henry L. Marsh III (D-Richmond) is sponsoring Kaine’s bill in the senate saying “It’s a no-brainer whose time has come.”

Kaine’s bill, as currently drawn though, would not require background checks on gun sales by private individuals outside of a gun show. Therein lays a cause for questioning.

1. If the governors intent is to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally deranged, what about those purchases made from individual to individual? Deranged but functional people like Cho can still make a purchase that way.
2. How may deranged people have bought firearms from gun shows and then went on killing sprees? Do we know? We may be trying to fix something that is not showing itself to be an issue.
3. How are authorities going to manage the number of people who want to do background checks so they can sell their collection at a gun show? Will sellers be able to comply? Will they have to pay for it out of pocket, or will the state pick up the tab?
4. What about disclosing personal/private information to people on the street? Do you want a stranger you barely know to find out that you are a.) a spouse abuser, b)a felon, or c.)deemed to have some mental deficiency? A negative on a background check will tell them one of these or others may be at issue since the state says they can’t buy the firearm.

Delegate “Bill” Janis of Henrico gets the issue right the first time. Says Janice “It’s a largely meaningless gesture. There is no reason why those same casual sales can’t take place outside a gun show. I’m not sure how this does anything to prevent this type of transaction.” He characterized the governor’s move as “more political posturing and symbolism than substance.” “I think it’s the first step toward the governor’s ultimate goal of banning all casual sales and or transfers of firearms between private persons in Virginia.”

Gun Free Zone Liability Act

I've seen this talked about on the web lately. It has even been put forth as bills in a few places. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I will leave the details to experts.

The Gun Free Zone Liability Act: If you create a "gun free" zone, you are liable for the safety of the visitors.

That said, we can reverse it.

The CCW Protection Area: Business owners are not liable for damages caused by any CCW while using a weapon to protect himself or others.

Any ideas? Suggestions are welcome.