By Louis J Beradi
Illinois stands alone in two categories: the city with the most blood-soaked streets and the only state that denies the right to keep and bear arms.
I would like to point out the obvious fact that Chicago has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, yet criminals, for some reason, do not seem to obey those laws. Criminals by definition do not obey laws.
The letter writer takes the position that because criminals commit crimes with firearms, Illinois is justified in denying law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights. Let me extend his logic to other rights. Because some people abuse their First Amendment right of free speech by practicing hate speech, we are justified in prohibiting him from ever writing another letter to the editor and he must close down his blog forever.
Law-abiding Americans should never be denied basic constitutional rights because criminals abuse those rights.
The letter writer points out that Illinois stands alone in denying its citizens the basic human right of self-defense because otherwise we would have blood-soaked streets. Let me point out two truths: 1. Every state that passed right-to-carry legislation, despite predictions to the contrary, saw violent crime either go down or remain the same. 2. Every Monday morning, the Tribune tells us that the streets are already soaked with blood and it is only getting worse.
The Chicago anti-gun policies have proven to be a deadly failure and it is time to join the other 49 states in the 21st century.
Letter to the Editor - Chicago Tribune
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
People's Republic of China Bashes U.S. 2nd Amendment as Human Rights Violation
by John Haughey
According to the faceless, monolithic regime that rules the People’s Republic of China, the United States is a flagrant abuser of human rights because its Second Amendment allows ordinary rank-and-file citizens to bear arms.
The Orwellian irony of criticizing Americans’ constitutional guarantee of unalienable gun rights as a human rights violation elevates hyperbole to new levels of looking-glass blatherspeak.
The PRC issued a report entitled “Human Rights Record of the United States in 2011,” a day after the U.S. State Department published its annual update on human rights abuses in mainland China by the Communist leadership, which regularly "disappears" critics, prohibits free exercise of religion, tortures dissidents and their families, forces women to have abortions to enforce its "one-child policy," censors the Internet, harvests body organs from opponents, and on and on.
Those aren't human rights violations by China's standards, but your Second Amendment right to own a weapon is.
“The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership,” the report says. “The U.S. people hold between 35 percent and 50 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, with every 100 people having 90 guns [and] 47 percent of American adults reported that they had a gun.”
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb called the Chinese "a laughing stock."
“Perhaps what offends them most is that our Second Amendment was authored to prevent this country from going down the same road toward totalitarianism that rulers in the People’s Republic have embraced," Gottlieb said. "We are not like China, and we will never be like China so long as American citizens retain their right to keep and bear arms, and they know it.”
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Before the 2nd Amendment -- GOD
By AWR Hawkins - May 6, 2012
A recent article in The New Yorker titled “American Battleground,” by Harvard’s Jill Lepore, has been gnawing at me ever since I critiqued it last week for The Daily Caller.
As I wrote then, it is a convoluted piece of quasi-academic work that is intended to make gun owners question the founders’ position on private gun ownership and, if possible, open 21st-century American minds to the idea of more gun control.
Lepore does this via subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on the Second Amendment throughout the article. By attacking the Second Amendment, she hopes to somehow convince us that we really don’t have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Rather, we were only intended to have a right to form militias to use guns in that capacity when emergencies arise.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Does a civilized society really need a 2nd Amendment?
By Bryan Hyde on April 20, 2012
A number of questions are being raised following the highly publicized Florida shooting case in which a neighborhood watch member shot and killed a young man. As is the case in most highly sensationalized stories, a great deal of effort is being put into placing the blame in a politically advantageous manner.
Race baiters have been quick to blame racism while gun control advocates are blaming easy access to firearms and laws that don’t require a person to flee before using deadly force in self-defense. Tragedy too often spells opportunity for those who wish to draw attention to either themselves or their pet causes.
But beyond the political posturing, there is a valid question raised by the incident: Do firearms in the hands of private citizens still have a place in civilized society?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Why a Nation Arms Itself - 2nd Amendment
by Patrick J. Buchanan
With the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer who was legally carrying a 9-millimeter handgun, the familiar wail has arisen from our cultural and media elite:
America has too many guns!
"Open carry" and "concealed carry" laws should be repealed.
Florida's "Stand-your-ground" law, replicated in two dozen states, threatens to turn America into the Tombstone of Doc Hiday and Wyatt Earp. This is insane!
The United Nations agrees. This year, the world body takes up the global control of firearms, including small arms in the hands of citizens.
According to Sen. Rand Paul, the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" will almost surely mandate tougher licensing requirements to own a gun, require the confiscation and destruction of unauthorized civilian firearms, call for a ban on the trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, and create an international gun registry.
No more Colt .45s in the top drawer or M-1 rifles in the closet.
With the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer who was legally carrying a 9-millimeter handgun, the familiar wail has arisen from our cultural and media elite:
America has too many guns!
"Open carry" and "concealed carry" laws should be repealed.
Florida's "Stand-your-ground" law, replicated in two dozen states, threatens to turn America into the Tombstone of Doc Hiday and Wyatt Earp. This is insane!
The United Nations agrees. This year, the world body takes up the global control of firearms, including small arms in the hands of citizens.
According to Sen. Rand Paul, the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" will almost surely mandate tougher licensing requirements to own a gun, require the confiscation and destruction of unauthorized civilian firearms, call for a ban on the trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, and create an international gun registry.
No more Colt .45s in the top drawer or M-1 rifles in the closet.
Friday, March 23, 2012
2nd Amendment -- Last Frontier
By Glen Wunderlich
Courts Split on Right to Carry Firearms Outside the Home
Unquestionably the hottest issue in Second Amendment litigation today is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms outside the home for personal protection—and if so, what might be the limits on that right. Until recently, far too many courts have wrongly claimed that because the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago only struck down bans on handgun possession in the home, that’s all there is to the Second Amendment.
Now, there are signs that this resistance is weakening. In a big win for gun owners’ rights in Maryland, on March 5, a federal judge ruled in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan that a key provision of the state’s gun laws is unconstitutional. Judge Benson Everett Legg declared that Maryland’s requirement for a “good and substantial reason” to obtain a concealed-carry permit violates the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Though this is not an NRA-funded case, both the result and the reasoning give hope for future progress on the issue.
“The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home,” Judge Legg wrote in his 23-page ruling. “In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment’s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be.’’
Judge Legg added, “A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
From www.thinkingafield.org and the NRA
Courts Split on Right to Carry Firearms Outside the Home
Unquestionably the hottest issue in Second Amendment litigation today is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms outside the home for personal protection—and if so, what might be the limits on that right. Until recently, far too many courts have wrongly claimed that because the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago only struck down bans on handgun possession in the home, that’s all there is to the Second Amendment.
Now, there are signs that this resistance is weakening. In a big win for gun owners’ rights in Maryland, on March 5, a federal judge ruled in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan that a key provision of the state’s gun laws is unconstitutional. Judge Benson Everett Legg declared that Maryland’s requirement for a “good and substantial reason” to obtain a concealed-carry permit violates the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Though this is not an NRA-funded case, both the result and the reasoning give hope for future progress on the issue.
“The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home,” Judge Legg wrote in his 23-page ruling. “In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment’s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be.’’
Judge Legg added, “A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
From www.thinkingafield.org and the NRA
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Individual or Collective Right – A brief history of the 2nd Amendment
by Gary Wood
Today we are struggling with people who believe the right to keep and bear arms is somehow a collective right, tied to militia membership, and not an individual natural right. This false assumption is based on today’s understanding and rhetoric. We also have the ambiguous 1939 Supreme Court case, U.S. vs. Miller that significantly fails to embrace the founding generation’s intent. The other area we have is the 2nd Amendment’s preamble that some point to as a reason to support the collective, militia tied concept. Yet history and understanding of bearing arms teaches us what is really the intent – the right to keep and bear arms is an individual natural right!
One key to understanding any rights found in what we know of as the Bill of Rights is the deep tie to our English roots, as a country. The colonial citizens were mostly English citizens serving under the Crown with guidance from the Parliament. Of course, self-rule was also deep rooted due to the fact colonies were separated from England by a little thing called the Atlantic Ocean. The colonists became very independent and felt extremely competent to legislate their daily lives.
Come with me on a swing back in time, before the 17th and 18th centuries, before 1689 when the English Bill of Rights came into existence…back to a time when it was not a right to bear arms…not a right at all but rather a requirement. Our first stop takes us back to the 9th Century under Alfred the Great. As Scott Bradley reminds us “…all of his peoplewere required to be armed with personal weapons and were subject to perform in the defense of the nation.”
Today we are struggling with people who believe the right to keep and bear arms is somehow a collective right, tied to militia membership, and not an individual natural right. This false assumption is based on today’s understanding and rhetoric. We also have the ambiguous 1939 Supreme Court case, U.S. vs. Miller that significantly fails to embrace the founding generation’s intent. The other area we have is the 2nd Amendment’s preamble that some point to as a reason to support the collective, militia tied concept. Yet history and understanding of bearing arms teaches us what is really the intent – the right to keep and bear arms is an individual natural right!
One key to understanding any rights found in what we know of as the Bill of Rights is the deep tie to our English roots, as a country. The colonial citizens were mostly English citizens serving under the Crown with guidance from the Parliament. Of course, self-rule was also deep rooted due to the fact colonies were separated from England by a little thing called the Atlantic Ocean. The colonists became very independent and felt extremely competent to legislate their daily lives.
Come with me on a swing back in time, before the 17th and 18th centuries, before 1689 when the English Bill of Rights came into existence…back to a time when it was not a right to bear arms…not a right at all but rather a requirement. Our first stop takes us back to the 9th Century under Alfred the Great. As Scott Bradley reminds us “…all of his peoplewere required to be armed with personal weapons and were subject to perform in the defense of the nation.”
Monday, March 19, 2012
2nd Amendment - Right-to-carry lowers violent crime
By John R. Lott Jr.
Among peer-reviewed national studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime temporarily increases slightly. The possibility that permit holders might lead to more crime is easily evaluated by looking at how incredibly law-abiding they are, with them losing their permits for any firearms-related violations (usually trivial ones) at hundredths or thousandths of 1 percentage point.
Forty-one states currently have right-to-carry laws where permits are based on objective criteria, such as passing a criminal background check. These laws have worked well — so well that no state has chosen to repeal the law or even held legislative hearings to reconsider it.
Baltimore Sun Opinion
Among peer-reviewed national studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime temporarily increases slightly. The possibility that permit holders might lead to more crime is easily evaluated by looking at how incredibly law-abiding they are, with them losing their permits for any firearms-related violations (usually trivial ones) at hundredths or thousandths of 1 percentage point.
Forty-one states currently have right-to-carry laws where permits are based on objective criteria, such as passing a criminal background check. These laws have worked well — so well that no state has chosen to repeal the law or even held legislative hearings to reconsider it.
Baltimore Sun Opinion
Friday, March 9, 2012
2nd Amendment - Colleges find ways to foil pro-gun rulings
By Valerie Richardson
DENVER Courts are ruling in favor of allowing those with concealed-carry permits to bring their handguns on campus, but universities are figuring out ways to keep the guns out.
Gun rights advocates recently notched major legal victories in Colorado and Oregon, with courts in both states agreeing that university policies banning firearms on campus must defer to state laws allowing permit holders to carry concealed handguns.
In response, however, university officials in Oregon and Virginia have enacted policies allowing concealed carry on campus but not in buildings, including classrooms, dormitories, event centers and dining halls.
The result is that permit holders may do little more than walk across campus with their handguns, an outcome that circumvents the intent of the court decisions, critics say.
DENVER Courts are ruling in favor of allowing those with concealed-carry permits to bring their handguns on campus, but universities are figuring out ways to keep the guns out.
Gun rights advocates recently notched major legal victories in Colorado and Oregon, with courts in both states agreeing that university policies banning firearms on campus must defer to state laws allowing permit holders to carry concealed handguns.
In response, however, university officials in Oregon and Virginia have enacted policies allowing concealed carry on campus but not in buildings, including classrooms, dormitories, event centers and dining halls.
The result is that permit holders may do little more than walk across campus with their handguns, an outcome that circumvents the intent of the court decisions, critics say.
Monday, March 5, 2012
2nd Amendment -- Well Regulated Militias in the Colonies
By Prof. Joerg W. Knipprath
When Paul Revere and his companions alerted the Massachusetts countryside of the movement of British troops, he warned his fellow-British subjects, “The Regulars are coming out.” In contrast to those troops, with their standard drill, formations, equipment, and armament, the Patriot combatants at Lexington and Concord (as well as Revere himself) were “Minutemen,” a lightly-armed, organized rapid-response component of the colonial militia. As all such militias at the time, they were “irregulars,” though the quality of the Minutemen’s equipment and training was superior to that of the militia as a whole. The distinction between such organized parts and the general militia was continued by the states, and, beginning in 1792, in the second federal Militia Act. It is a distinction that, despite changes in the nature of the militia concept, is preserved in current law.
When Paul Revere and his companions alerted the Massachusetts countryside of the movement of British troops, he warned his fellow-British subjects, “The Regulars are coming out.” In contrast to those troops, with their standard drill, formations, equipment, and armament, the Patriot combatants at Lexington and Concord (as well as Revere himself) were “Minutemen,” a lightly-armed, organized rapid-response component of the colonial militia. As all such militias at the time, they were “irregulars,” though the quality of the Minutemen’s equipment and training was superior to that of the militia as a whole. The distinction between such organized parts and the general militia was continued by the states, and, beginning in 1792, in the second federal Militia Act. It is a distinction that, despite changes in the nature of the militia concept, is preserved in current law.
Monday, February 27, 2012
2nd Amendment -- President's Plan to Challenge New Gun Rights
By JW Ross
To 2nd Amendment supporters who thought that the recent Supreme Court's decision (specifically Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) was the final word regarding their "right to bear arms", a recent ruling by a Federal judge will prove troublesome.
The judge who has the support of the White House and DOJ has ruled inexplicably that the recent Supreme Court decision does not grant licensed gun owners the right to carry their guns in public. Although this seems counter to the "intent" of the ruling by the highest court in the land, the issue remains in question because the Supreme Court justices were not explicit on the issue of "bearing" arms.
Watcher feel that the White House is setting the stage with this Federal judge's ruling for another court test during President Obama's second term, when he will very likely have the opportunity to replace at least two retiring court justices with more liberal appointees. New appointees will undoubtedly sway the present 5 to 4 decision in favor of a strong 2nd amendment to a 5 to 4 vote in favor of renewing gun restrictions or the elimination of the right altogether.
In the meantime, it is expected that liberal judges will continue to throw up "smoke screen rulings" to thwart any serious changes to right to carry laws in major cities throughout the United States.
To 2nd Amendment supporters who thought that the recent Supreme Court's decision (specifically Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) was the final word regarding their "right to bear arms", a recent ruling by a Federal judge will prove troublesome.
The judge who has the support of the White House and DOJ has ruled inexplicably that the recent Supreme Court decision does not grant licensed gun owners the right to carry their guns in public. Although this seems counter to the "intent" of the ruling by the highest court in the land, the issue remains in question because the Supreme Court justices were not explicit on the issue of "bearing" arms.
Watcher feel that the White House is setting the stage with this Federal judge's ruling for another court test during President Obama's second term, when he will very likely have the opportunity to replace at least two retiring court justices with more liberal appointees. New appointees will undoubtedly sway the present 5 to 4 decision in favor of a strong 2nd amendment to a 5 to 4 vote in favor of renewing gun restrictions or the elimination of the right altogether.
In the meantime, it is expected that liberal judges will continue to throw up "smoke screen rulings" to thwart any serious changes to right to carry laws in major cities throughout the United States.
Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights
By Bob Barr
Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights.
Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights.
Friday, February 24, 2012
2nd Amendment -- Pure and Simple
By Ralph Glasser
The Second Amendment was written back in the 1700s and must be interpreted in the vernacular of that era. It can only be truly understood by studying contemporaneous expositions on the subject written by the men who actually signed the document.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Back in the 1700s, the term “well regulated” meant well trained or proficient. It had absolutely nothing to do with “regulation” in modern terms.
In fact, the independent clause of the sentence specifically disallows such modern regulation, in that the right “shall not be infringed.”
Since the “militia” was then defined as the “able-bodied men” in the community, what the Second Amendment really said in its original context is:
Freedom is secure only when able-bodied men in the community are well trained in its defense. Therefore, there shall be no encroachment on the right of the people to own arms and to carry them.
Clearly, U.S. citizens residing in Illinois have had their fundamental rights infringed for far too long.
From the opinion pages of SJ-R.com
The Second Amendment was written back in the 1700s and must be interpreted in the vernacular of that era. It can only be truly understood by studying contemporaneous expositions on the subject written by the men who actually signed the document.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Back in the 1700s, the term “well regulated” meant well trained or proficient. It had absolutely nothing to do with “regulation” in modern terms.
In fact, the independent clause of the sentence specifically disallows such modern regulation, in that the right “shall not be infringed.”
Since the “militia” was then defined as the “able-bodied men” in the community, what the Second Amendment really said in its original context is:
Freedom is secure only when able-bodied men in the community are well trained in its defense. Therefore, there shall be no encroachment on the right of the people to own arms and to carry them.
Clearly, U.S. citizens residing in Illinois have had their fundamental rights infringed for far too long.
From the opinion pages of SJ-R.com
Friday, January 20, 2012
Does the 2nd Amendment protect "right to bear arms" outside the home?
January 2, 2012
NRA will appeal yesterday’s decision by a federal court in Texas, which held that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any right to keep or bear arms outside the home.
The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings of the Northern District of Texas, came in the case of Jennings v. McCraw, in which a group of law-abiding 18- to 20-year old adults challenged the state law prohibiting issuance of concealed handgun licenses to persons under 21, who are treated as adults for virtually every other purpose under the law. (NRA is also a party on behalf of its members in this age group.) Judge Cummings ruled that it was unnecessary to address the state’s discrimination against young adults because “the right to carry a handgun outside of the home … seems to be beyond the scope of the core Second Amendment concern articulated in Heller [v. District of Columbia].”
NRA will appeal yesterday’s decision by a federal court in Texas, which held that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect any right to keep or bear arms outside the home.
The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings of the Northern District of Texas, came in the case of Jennings v. McCraw, in which a group of law-abiding 18- to 20-year old adults challenged the state law prohibiting issuance of concealed handgun licenses to persons under 21, who are treated as adults for virtually every other purpose under the law. (NRA is also a party on behalf of its members in this age group.) Judge Cummings ruled that it was unnecessary to address the state’s discrimination against young adults because “the right to carry a handgun outside of the home … seems to be beyond the scope of the core Second Amendment concern articulated in Heller [v. District of Columbia].”
Friday, December 30, 2011
2nd Amendment and Foreign States
By Brian Palmer - Courtesy of Slate.com
Do any foreign states guarantee the right to keep and bear arms like we do in the United States?
Yes. Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in their constitutions. Guatemala's Article 38 is the only one that's as broad as our Second Amendment (it guarantees "the right of possession of arms for personal use"). Article 10 of the Mexican constitution and Article 268-1 of Haiti's constitution limit the right to the confines of the home and allow the government to pass laws significantly restricting ownership. Mexicans, for example, are supposed to get a permit, renewable every year, from the military, and all firearms must be registered. (The law is widely ignored. Only 4,300 licenses have been issued for Mexico's 105 million people.) Handguns must be .380 caliber or less, shotguns can't be greater than 12 gauge, and rifles must be .30 caliber or smaller.
A constitutional provision doesn't necessarily guarantee easy access to firearms or a country full of gun enthusiasts. While the United States has 90 guns per 100 people the highest ownership rate in the world Mexico has just 15, placing it 22 among the 59 countries for which data is available.
Do any foreign states guarantee the right to keep and bear arms like we do in the United States?
Yes. Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in their constitutions. Guatemala's Article 38 is the only one that's as broad as our Second Amendment (it guarantees "the right of possession of arms for personal use"). Article 10 of the Mexican constitution and Article 268-1 of Haiti's constitution limit the right to the confines of the home and allow the government to pass laws significantly restricting ownership. Mexicans, for example, are supposed to get a permit, renewable every year, from the military, and all firearms must be registered. (The law is widely ignored. Only 4,300 licenses have been issued for Mexico's 105 million people.) Handguns must be .380 caliber or less, shotguns can't be greater than 12 gauge, and rifles must be .30 caliber or smaller.
A constitutional provision doesn't necessarily guarantee easy access to firearms or a country full of gun enthusiasts. While the United States has 90 guns per 100 people the highest ownership rate in the world Mexico has just 15, placing it 22 among the 59 countries for which data is available.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
2nd Amendment -- Ignoring the "Will of the People"
By John Lott
President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.
His push as been quiet but relentless.
Just this past week Obama signaled that he was going to just ignore two new parts of the 2012 Omnibus Spending bill. Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called "signing statement," a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.
Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.
But why should the federal government use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying?
President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.
His push as been quiet but relentless.
Just this past week Obama signaled that he was going to just ignore two new parts of the 2012 Omnibus Spending bill. Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called "signing statement," a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.
Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.
But why should the federal government use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The 2nd Amendment’s Forgotten Clause
By Jim Pontillo
For those who lament America’s cultural evolution toward secular society devoid the moral absolutes that served our Founding Fathers and guided them with providential authority to set to parchment the most “progressive” government the world had seen, our national degeneration is viewed with sadness.
We find ourselves trying to reconcile cultural reality with factual reality where morality would suggest they both are congruent, and yet, increasingly we find truth has become more a component of personal whim than one of real life circumstance.
As a person who has spent his life in the business of manufacturing, where compensation is intimately connected to real output and production of goods, it is difficult to comprehend the esoteric idea that value and worth is somehow a nebulous concept that politicians can debate over. To exasperate this inability to comprehend, my company serves an industry which caters to the down to earth blue-collar man who more often than not is making his living as I do, by producing some product or service of value that he/she must sell in an open and free market.
“Customers” of our wares are often disparaged by the political class and by the main stream media as “dim”, “stupid”, “simplistic”, and my personal favorite, “red-neck”, where only such people of lowly station would be interested in obtaining and possessing such an artifact.
My firm manufactures handguns.
For those who lament America’s cultural evolution toward secular society devoid the moral absolutes that served our Founding Fathers and guided them with providential authority to set to parchment the most “progressive” government the world had seen, our national degeneration is viewed with sadness.
We find ourselves trying to reconcile cultural reality with factual reality where morality would suggest they both are congruent, and yet, increasingly we find truth has become more a component of personal whim than one of real life circumstance.
As a person who has spent his life in the business of manufacturing, where compensation is intimately connected to real output and production of goods, it is difficult to comprehend the esoteric idea that value and worth is somehow a nebulous concept that politicians can debate over. To exasperate this inability to comprehend, my company serves an industry which caters to the down to earth blue-collar man who more often than not is making his living as I do, by producing some product or service of value that he/she must sell in an open and free market.
“Customers” of our wares are often disparaged by the political class and by the main stream media as “dim”, “stupid”, “simplistic”, and my personal favorite, “red-neck”, where only such people of lowly station would be interested in obtaining and possessing such an artifact.
My firm manufactures handguns.
Happy 220th Birthday, Second Amendment!
On December 15th, 1791, 220 years ago, The United States of America adopted the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
- deterring undemocratic government;
- repelling invasion;
- suppressing insurrection;
- facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
- participating in law enforcement;
- enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
- deterring undemocratic government;
- repelling invasion;
- suppressing insurrection;
- facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
- participating in law enforcement;
- enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Media Silence Is Deafening - 2nd Amendment
By John Lott
Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.
Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.
Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."
The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home."
But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.
Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.
Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.
Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."
The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home."
But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.
Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The Second Amendment: A Legacy to Our Children
BY da Tagliare
There is a war raging right now in the United States concerning the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Our socialistic leaders are pushing harder and harder to outlaw all possession of all firearms by private citizens.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is even using the United Nations and their Small Arms Treaty to supersede the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. President Obama has also been outspoken about his desire to see stricter nationwide gun control laws passed supposedly to help prevent crime and we all know what a crock of manure that argument is.
In addition to writing your congressmen and senators and contributing to gun lobby groups such as the NRA, one of the other things you can do to help support the Second Amendment is to teach your children and grandchildren to shoot and respect a gun. Start them as young as possible.
There is a war raging right now in the United States concerning the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Our socialistic leaders are pushing harder and harder to outlaw all possession of all firearms by private citizens.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is even using the United Nations and their Small Arms Treaty to supersede the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. President Obama has also been outspoken about his desire to see stricter nationwide gun control laws passed supposedly to help prevent crime and we all know what a crock of manure that argument is.
In addition to writing your congressmen and senators and contributing to gun lobby groups such as the NRA, one of the other things you can do to help support the Second Amendment is to teach your children and grandchildren to shoot and respect a gun. Start them as young as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)