May 6th, 2013 by Editor

From the Gun Owners of America:

…Remember when Senators Pat Toomey, Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer formed an unholy alliance during the recent gun battle on Capitol Hill? Remember how their amendment would have encouraged your psychiatrist to turn you in to the FBI’s gun ban list?

And you remember how we stopped that provision, because over 40 senators found it to be odious and a violation of the Second Amendment?

Well, guess what? Barack Obama has just concluded that “he don’t need no stinkin’ Senate.”  Read the rest of this entry »

May 6th, 2013 by Editor

From NewsWithViews:

Not since 1775 has a central government in America attempted to disarm its citizens in the way that President Barack Obama and Senator Dianne Feinstein did recently. King George III attempted to disarm the colonists on April 19, 1775, and that attempt ignited America’s War for Independence. Leading the charge to resist the banning and confiscation of their firearms were colonial pastors such as Jonas Clark. Back then, America’s pastors had a thorough comprehension of the Biblical principles of liberty, including the right to keep and bear arms. They taught their congregations these sacred principles with such zeal and persuasion that the attempt by those British troops to march on Lexington and Concord and seize the colonists’ guns was met with the now famous “shot heard ’round the world.” Ever since that historic event, the people’s right to bear arms has been held sacred by the vast majority of Americans–Christian or otherwise. The right to bear arms was understood to be, not just a right, but a God-ordained duty, a long time before it was ever enshrined in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

From AmmoLand Gun News:

…Remember all those who denied that firearms confiscation as a result of New York’s new gun laws was too “insane” to even consider?

That it was strictly in the realm of paranoid conspiracy theorists and the “it cant happen here crowd”?

Those were and remain some of the standard replies to anyone who even thought about the possibility, let alone gave voice to it, despite the fact that Gov Cuomo and numerous other officials made public comments about such a plan, as I discussed in my article “Feinstein & Cuomo Admit Planning Australian Style Government Gun Buy Back” .

…There’s just one huge problem it is happening now in New York State!  Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

For the idiots and treasonous rats who continue to repeat the propaganda that “they” aren’t trying to take our guns, this should be an eye-opener.   Why propose and pass a bill in secret — meaning outside of a public forum where citizens can speak and oppose the measure — if “they” aren’t trying to get away with something and “they” don’t know precisely how unconstitutional the bill is?  From The Daily Caller:

Connecticut just drafted 138 pages of gun law basically in secret, enacted it before it could be read and digested by those who signed it — and certainly not by the public it pretends to legitimately control — and in doing so ended up requiring federally licensed agents in the state to violate federal law, or flatly deny citizens their rights…

Legislators who draft laws in secret are behaving like the king’s men who ignited the American Revolution. They can expect no less if they continue down such a dark road, many experts say.

What did the officials choose to draft law against by this nefarious method? Only the very palladium of liberty, the very thing the Revolution warned us to guard against, a bill to reduce and actually eliminate a right for keeping and bearing arms the public already legally keeps.

Along with a list of many of the most popular makes and models in use today, the bill includes broad descriptions of arms to cover an untold number of other modern and older firearms.

…These officials operate by consent of the governed, with rights of minorities protected. Laws are to be drafted in public, with input from experts and the public. They deliberately and with malice aforethought chose not to.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 5th, 2013 by Editor

Few in the older generations put much stock in what Hollywood has to say about American politics.  The Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation are wise enough to know better than to take seriously the political ramblings of people who come from artists’ communes and Fabian “think tanks.”  Even more so when these actors come from other countries entirely and think they have a right to try to change our American policies.  Yet nowhere is their hypocrisy more apparent than when they dare to speak on American gun control.

For instance, Jim Carrey, by way of our favorite disinformation site the Huffington Post, opined,

“I disagree wholeheartedly with those who say that there are just too many guns out there to control and that more gun laws won’t make a difference….I care deeply about our future and I feel it’s my duty as a citizen to do everything in my power to make this a better place.”

Carrey claims we can’t tell him to go back to Canada because, while he was born in Canada, he is a naturalized American citizen now.  Well, I could likewise tell him about how my grandparents and great grandparents came over here from Europe, thankfully before Hitler tried to take over the continent, and that it was their pure joy to become Americans.  To them, being Americans meant they didn’t bring over the exact kind of politics they were trying to get away from; they adopted the American politics they were seeking.  They didn’t try to turn America’s government into a monarchy, for instance, or a Socialist State either for that matter.  So immigrants?  Sure, we love em!  But the ones who want to change our way of living, including our government?  No thanks.  In fact, I believe that’s what’s called sedition.

Yet when Carrey attempts to steer around the paradox of his arguing for gun control while having an armed body guard himself, he says,

“For those who say I’m a hypocrite because I have an armed bodyguard, lets make one thing clear: No one in my employ is allowed to carry a large magazine and NO ONE IS ASKING ANYONE TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.”

Well, your critics are right Mr. Carrey.  You are being hypocritical.  Who cares how many rounds your bodyguard’s clip holds?  And, since you like to yell, let me return the favor.  Maybe you’ll hear me.  ANY GUN CONTROL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Didn’t you have to learn the Bill of Rights before you became a citizen?  The 2nd amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The 2nd amendment doesn’t give Americans the right to bear arms in defense of themselves or others; that right is already inalienable, endowed to us by our CREATOR.  The 2nd amendment simply states that that inalienable right is not to be infringed.  And what is gun control?  IT’S AN INFRINGEMENT!  Read the rest of this entry »

April 4th, 2013 by Editor

Colorado Representative Diana DeGette has been fodder for an Internet gigglefest for a few days now after having said this:

“What’s the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you, these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them” says Rep DeGette. According to her, “the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will be shot and there won’t be any more available.”

via Co-Sponsor Of Bill Banning Magazines Demonstrates She Doesn’t Know What They Are, Mistakes Them for Bullets | CNS News.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 1st, 2013 by Editor

Lately the revisionist “historians” have been intolerable, telling us things like that Paul Revere didn’t make his famous midnight ride, that Betsy Ross didn’t sew the first flag, and that the founding fathers weren’t God-fearing Christians.  These “revisions” denigrate our history, and downplay our revolutionary founding.  But then, maybe they’re supposed to. 

Now these “historians” have turned their attention to Nazi Germany arguing that one must steep oneself in the historical context of the Holocaust in order to understand, and therefore comment on, its significance.  Those who study the Holocaust have seen this kind of protectionism before, which unfortunately keeps those who need to know their history from studying it, and therefore gleaning its meaning.  Perhaps that too is the point.

For instance, the Huffington Post’s Adam Geller recently wrote,

In the months since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, some gun rights supporters have repeatedly compared U.S. gun control efforts to Nazi restrictions on firearms, arguing that limiting weapons ownership could leave Americans defenseless against homegrown tyrants.

But some experts say that argument distorts a complex and contrary history. In reality, scholars say, Hitler loosened the tight gun laws that governed Germany after World War I, even as he barred Jews from owning weapons and moved to confiscate them.

Advocates who cite Hitler in the current U.S. debate overlook that Jews in 1930s Germany were a very small population, owned few guns before the Nazis took control, and lived under a dictatorship commanding overwhelming public support and military might, historians say. While it doesn’t fit neatly into the modern-day gun debate, they say, the truth is that for all Hitler’s unquestionably evil acts, his firearms laws likely made no difference in Jews’ very tenuous odds of survival.

…With the 1938 law [meaning the Nazi Weapons Law, passed on March 18, 1938, which, is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968], Nazis seized guns from Jewish homes. But few Jews owned guns and they composed just 2 percent of the population in a country that strongly backed Hitler. By the time the law passed, Jews were so marginalized and spread among so many cities, there was no possibility of them putting up meaningful resistance, even with guns, said Robert Gellately, a professor of history at Florida State University and author of “Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany.”

Am I reading this correctly?  Do Geller, et al, mean to argue that while, yes, Hitler confiscated guns from the German Jews, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway because there were so few Jews, even fewer Jews with guns, and that they were scattered, so they would’ve been captured and thrown in death camps anyway???  That’s their argument against 2nd Amendment defenders’ argument that gun confiscation preceded every major 20th century genocide like those in China, Russia, Cambodia, and, yes, Germany?  That’s what their brilliant think-tankers came up with?  Well, I can sleep better at night knowing the gun grabbers aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer.  Wait, or are we not allowed to have knives either?  Read the rest of this entry »

March 6th, 2013 by Editor

You know it’s been hard enough watching the doggy killers and the gun grabbers repeatedly muddling “pit bull” ownership and gun ownership — like Gary Stein of the Sun-Sentinel did just this week when he advocated for breed-specific laws and gun control, as one alderman did in Watertown, Wisconsin when they were considering a “pit bull”-specific law, and when a neighbor shot at “pit bulls” who were attacking a boy in Washington, D.C.  But when I see them exploit the dead, well, then my hackles are really up.  What, it wasn’t enough for the gun grabbers to exploit the Sandy Hook dead with their gun-grabbing measures?  Now they have to come after “pit bulls” with their gun-grabbing, doggy-hating spiels?  Judging from what looks like Dogsbite.org‘s comments on an article regarding the Watertown BSL, what looks like Kory Nelson’s comments on an article regarding the Washington D.C. incident, and today, Merritt Clifton’s comments on an article about a boy who was mauled to death by a dog in Galesburg, Illinois, it’s almost as if the doggy killers all have the same handlers and those handlers tell them what to say and do.  What’s another word for that?  Oh yeah, puppet master.

The gun grabbers and doggy killers are right about one thing. Gun grabbing and breed-specific laws (BSL) share some commonalities: 1) They’re both unconstitutional seizures of property without due process, 2) They’re both done under the pretense of safety, and 3) Neither gun bans nor breed-specific legislation make communities safer; in fact, quite the opposite.

And since I’ve watched these evil gun grabbers exploit the innocent children that were brutally killed in Sandy Hook, I guess it should likewise come as no surprise when I see the likes of Merritt Clifton exploiting a dead child in order to push his massively skewed “pit bull” statistics.  Yes, believe it or not, Clifton made comments under the comments section of a WQAD channel 8 story about a boy in Galesburg, Illinois, who had been attacked and killed by what was erroneously called a “pit bull.”  Clifton wrote,

I have been logging fatal and disfiguring dog attacks by breed since September 1982 — more than 30 years. Of the 3,970 dogs involved in such attacks, 2,441 were pit bulls; 3,117 were of related molosser breeds, including Rottweilers, mastiffs, and their mixes, as well as pit bulls. Of the 502 human fatalities, 250 were killed by pit bulls; 371 (69%) were killed by pit bulls & other molosser breeds. Of the 2,194 people who were disfigured, 1,391 (61%) were disfigured by pit bulls; 1,790 (79%) were disfigured by pit bulls & other molosser breeds. Of the total deaths and disfigurements by pit bulls, approximately half have occurred in the past five years. This is, in short, a repetitively predictable phenomenon which is occurring more & more often, and, incidentally, is resulting in about 10 times as many animal deaths & disfigurements by pit bulls as are suffered by humans.

As I have so often done where Clifton’s ridiculousness was involved, I can so easily and quickly discredit Clifton’s “more than 30 years” of erroneous and laughable statistics by simply saying this: “PIT BULL” IS NOT A BREED! Read the rest of this entry »

March 4th, 2013 by Editor

March 10, 2013 update: In response to a torrent of responses to Mr. Stein’s ridiculous opinion piece last week (and of course the publicity he and the Sun-Sentinel were looking for on the backs of “pit bulls” and their owners whom Stein had maligned, which serves to generate ad revenue), Mr. Stein unapologetically wrote another hit piece noting that the responses to his response used the f-word alot.  Funny, isn’t it, how people don’t like it when you try to push legislation that kills innocent animals?  Not only that, but Mr. Stein actually had the audacity in his latest diatribe to call out some letters to him that were racist when he used the “those people,” “in that neighborhood,” “with those kinds of dogs” language himself.  Yeah, we all know he’s racistly referring to black and Latino neighborhoods, his latest harangue even racistly opining against Cubans apparently, but then he cited Dogsbite.org as a source!  So Forrest Gump truly was right: Stupid is as stupid does.  And Mr. Stein is once again incorrect when he says that “Pit bull lovers don’t like that site, because it makes their dogs look bad.”  No, we don’t like that site because it’s junk science, with skewed and erroneous statistics that no proper media outlet in its right mind would ever cite as a credible source.  But then, the Sun-Sentinel‘s admission that it has used Dogsbite.org as a source calls the Sun-Sentinel itself into question as a credible source, as do Mr. Stein’s ridiculous prejudices about “pit bulls,” Latinos, and gun owners.  That’s also why, of the three reasons that I listed why Mr. Stein might push Hitlerian gun control and breed-specific laws, mentally challenged AND corrupt got my votes.  

***

Today, the utter foolishness of Broward County, Florida, editorialist Gary Stein, who wrote the hit piece, “Getting a bang out of pit bull spiels” for the Sun-Sentinel poking fun at “pit bull” advocates and pro-gun lobbyists, deserves the following well-reasoned and godly response.  Solomon, one of the wisest men who ever lived, wrote:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:5)

So, via the following, I’m going to answer Mr. Stein as his folly deserves. 

Like his wiser forebear Solomon, Mr. Stein ought to know that we, as God’s creation, have a moral obligation to stand up for the weak, the poor, and the helpless.  But so often anti-gun lobbyists have appeared to overlook the glaring first amendment violation (specifically a violation of citizens’ freedom of religion) inherent in gun control/disarmament.  For the Christian and the Jew, Exodus 22:2 (i.e. the Pentateuch) very clearly states: “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.”  In other words, God clearly allows for protection to the death of one’s home, property, and the defenseless.

Similarly, when Cain killed his brother Abel using the jawbone of a donkey, God did not outlaw crude implements that could be used by wicked humans to take a human life; He cursed and banished the murderer (Genesis 4).  So there are very clear scriptural precepts that allow for humans to take another human life or hurt another in protection of one’s person, property, or in defense of another.  In other words, Jews and Christians have a moral obligation to defend themselves and others.  When the anti-gun lobby and the “representatives” they purchase reduce or eliminate citizens’ rights to protect themselves under the Constitution and under scriptural law, they are defying God’s authority and citizens’ moral obligation to defend their lives and the lives of others that are imperiled, which in turn is a 1st amendment freedom of religion violation.  If elected officials, and editorialists apparently, would read the scriptures more, they might not be so cavalier about pushing their own laws in clear violation of God’s.

To put the prior paragraph’s argument more succinctly: We have a right and a moral responsibility to defend ourselves, our own, and those who cannot defend themselves.  So when Mr. Stein does the bidding of his godless puppet masters and relates “pit bull” owners to 2nd amendment advocates, calling both “rabid,” his utter foolishness needs to be exposed. Read the rest of this entry »

January 29th, 2013 by Editor

Last Sunday, an 11-year-old boy in Washington D.C. was reportedly attacked by three “pit bulls” and then rescued by a Good Samaritan, who shot one of the dogs, and a bike patrol officer who shot the other two.  Now the Good Samaritan may face gun charges if you can believe it, courtesy of D.C.’s ridiculous gun law.  Gee, didn’t District of Columbia v. Heller already address D.C.’s unconstitutional gun law and didn’t D.C. lose?  And if the 2nd Amendment can be upheld for purposes of self-defense, then what about our moral obligation to protect others?  Even the boy’s uncle said the Good Samaritan did the right thing.

Perhaps the prosecution is just posturing because the boy was accidentally shot in the foot (although I have yet to see the media say who shot the boy in the foot, the Good Samaritan, the police officer, or someone else).  And I say the boy was “reportedly attacked” by “pit bulls” because lately when the media reports a “pit bull” attack, the dogs in question are often some kind of mastiff.  See, it wasn’t enough for them to malign American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Terriers, the dogs heretofore most commonly mislabeled “pit bulls.”  No, now “pit bulls” have come to mean 80-100 pound mastiffs too.  Read the rest of this entry »