Another 1,000,000+ Guns Added to American Homes in August

Background Checks On Firearm Sales Up 12% In August.Americans buy 1,074,757+ guns in August 2009

from Ammoland.com
September 9, 2009

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,074,757 checks in August 2009, a 12.3 percent increase from the 956,872 reported in August 2008.

So far that is roughly 9,076,205 gun bought this year! The total is probably more as NICS background checks may cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time.

This latest jump in background checks show that Americans are solidly in-favor of keeping firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens and clearly shows that proponents claiming the USA wants more gun control are blatantly wrong.

Gun Owners Say No to Gun Conrtol with their Wallets
The increased trend of Americans buying firearms at a record pace was once thought to be a one time fluke caused by fears of the new Obama administration expressed lust for more gun control. But now 10 months in and the wrongly named “fear buying” has now become the norm as law abiding US citizen exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms by the millions every month with no sign of slowing down.

The bulk of the buying has been concentrated on the following types of guns or calibers:

•Semi Auto Handguns
•Revolvers
•Ar15s and all variants of the Black Rifle
•.50 Caliber

1.17 Guns for Each Person
Conservative estimates of legally owned guns in the USA put the number at 355,029,250 million guns in the USA. That is 1.17 guns for everyone in the USA and if you listen to the liberal press they are all assault weapons. God bless anyone who tries to invade the USA…

Crime Rates Falling
The most stunning in all of this is that we have not seen an increase in crime, murder rates have fallen across most of the USA and Americans have shown that they can be trusted with firearms ownership. This is directly in contrast to what the national media and gun control supporters would have us believe.

Gun owners you are clearly the majority!

Click to read the article and the comments

POLL: 71% of Voters Don't Trust Sotomayer to judge fairly

The opportunity on Sotomayor, part II

from Hot Air.com
June 3, 2009
by Ed Morrissey

Last week, I wrote that the Republicans have an opportunity with the Sonia Sotomayor nomination not to conduct filibusters or fire-breathing sermons, but to calmly and dispassionately demonstrate that neither she nor Barack Obama represent the opinions of the majority of Americans on identity politics. A new Quinnipiac poll underscores that opportunity. A majority of voters across a wide swath of demographics oppose affirmative action and race- and gender-based setasides in government, education, and academia:

American voters say 55 - 36 percent that affirmative action should be abolished, and disagree 71 - 19 percent with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer’s ruling in the New Haven firefighters’ case, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

More than 70 percent of voters say diversity is not a good enough reason to give minorities preferential treatment in competition for government or private sector jobs, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey of more than 3,000 voters finds.

This poll brings good news to those who want to see a color-blind society. For the most part, all demographics favor protections for the disabled, but not for ethnicity and gender:

•Support 55 - 39 percent affirmative action for the disabled in hiring, promotions and college admissions. Protestants and Catholics support it, 49 - 46 percent and 49 - 47 percent, respectively. Jews also support it 59 - 25 percent;

•Oppose 70 - 25 percent giving some racial groups preference for government jobs to increase diversity. Black voters support it 49 - 45 percent while Hispanic voters are opposed 58 - 38 percent;

•Oppose 74 - 21 percent giving some racial groups preference for private sector jobs to increase diversity. Voters in every racial and religious group oppose this;

•Oppose 64 - 29 percent affirmative action for Hispanics in hiring, promotion and college entry. Black voters support it 59 - 30 percent while Hispanics split 47 - 48 percent;

•Oppose 61 - 33 percent affirmative action for blacks in hiring, promotion and college entry. Black voters support this 69 - 26 percent, as do Hispanics 51 - 46 percent;

•Oppose 62 - 32 percent affirmative action for white women in hiring, promotion and college entry. Women oppose this 58 - 35 percent but blacks support it 55 - 37 percent.

This puts Sotomayor and Obama in a narrow group that still favors preferential treatment and outcome-based policies. Republicans should see this as the real goal of the confirmation hearings - to communicate this to the entire electorate. As the poll demonstrates, it entails almost no risk and a large potential upside.

But in order to make that argument, they need to stick to rational arguments based on Sotomayor’s own words and her decisions, especially on Ricci. The GOP needs to avoid the inflammatory personal insults and the demand for obstructionism and focus on the fight they can win. Most Americans will agree that a President has the prerogative to get his judicial appointments a fair vote, at the very least. That doesn’t mean Republicans have to vote to confirm Sotomayor, but a filibuster won’t work, and a failed attempt will make the GOP look even more impotent.

In this case, Republicans represent the majority of Americans. They have a great opportunity to use the confirmation hearings as a stage to demonstrate that, as well as demonstrate their readiness not just to oppose Obama but to prove themselves trustworthy enough for leadership in DC.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Is Obama's Supreme Court Pick a Racist?

This is a great one!

Obama’s End Run on the Second Amendment

The Supreme Court nominee is a gun-banning radical who has ruled that cities and states can disarm you.

from Pajamas Media
May 28, 2009
by Bob Owens

Long before he was the president of the United States or even the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama made his opposition to the Second Amendment of the Constitution painfully clear. As a director of the Joyce Foundation for eight years (1994-2002), Obama participated in the creation and funding of prohibitionist-minded anti-gun groups to the tune of millions of dollars. This fact does not surprise the millions of Americans who have responded to the threat by purchasing millions of firearms since the president was elected and who purchased at least 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition in December alone.

What far fewer Americans know about Obama is that he was one of the Joyce Foundation’s directors when they embarked on a plot to undermine the Second Amendment by targeting the Supreme Court of the United States:

The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend. …

The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.

Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices.

Voters, however, were all but completely unaware of the Joyce Foundation director’s attempt to undermine the Constitution and voted the unvetted candidate into the White House. Just more than seven months after Hardy’s warning, Obama stands on the brink of succeeding where he once failed, by nominating an anti-gun radical appellate judge by the name of Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court.

Ken Blackwell was among the first to sound the alarm on Sotomayor’s radical view of the Second Amendment and the threat her views pose to the Constitution.

The recent landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller put an end to decades of arguments regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS rejected the collectivist interpretation favored by gun control advocates such as President Obama, noting that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right of citizens to own firearms for private use is an individual right that predates the Constitution, with its authority tied directly to the natural right of self-defense.

Just six months after Heller, however, Sotomayor issued an opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo that the protections of the Second Amendment do not apply to the states, and that if your city or state wants to ban all guns, then they have the right to disarm you. Such an opinion seems to fly directly in the face of Heller, exposing Sotomayor as an anti-gun radical who will affirm full-on gun prohibitions and believes that you have no right to own a firearm, even for the most basic right of defending your family in your own home.

Maloney has now been appealed to the Supreme Court, which will hear the case on June 26. If confirmed, Sotomayor would almost certainly have to recuse herself from Maloney, but her views that made her such an attractive candidate to an anti-gun president would be involved in deciding similar cases appealed to the court.

While at the Joyce Foundation, Obama failed in the organization’s plot to corrupt Second Amendment legal scholarship and undermine the decision-making processes of the Supreme Court. Now president, only a concerted effort by America’s gun owners may keep an anti-gun activist judge from claiming a seat on the Court itself.

After Heller, the ever-changing candidate Obama affirmed the individualist view supported by a growing majority of Americans and sought to reassure America’s gun owners that he was not about to disarm them. By nominating an activist judge who holds a radically different view, Obama’s affirmation has proven to be yet another promise with a short shelf life.
Media pundits and Beltway insiders alike are predicting Sotomayor will be confirmed by the Senate and take her seat on the Supreme Court.

American gun owners who elected pro-gun Democrats and Republicans to the Senate may decide to make an issue of Sotomayor’s radical prohibitionist views. If they do, that tide could just as soon turn quickly against her, ending her hopes of ruling against the rights of Americans to defend their families from the nation’s highest court.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Obama prefers a Justice who will violate their oath of office...

Empathy vs. Impartiality - When they conflict, the Supreme Court must choose the latter.

from The National Review
By Jonah Goldberg
May 27, 2009

Why make this complicated?

President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job. Here’s the oath Supreme Court justices must take:

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Contrast that with Obama’s insistence that the “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles” is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice. According to White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor’s “American story” of humble origins — she was raised in the South Bronx — best prepares her for the high court because it shows “she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts.”

Obama says law and precedent should determine rulings in “95 percent of the cases,” but in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. “In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

Now, keep in mind that 5 percent of Supreme Court cases isn’t everything, but it’s nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For the hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule.

So, what’s wrong with empathy?

Well, nothing. Empathy is a fine thing, and all decent people should employ it, including Supreme Court justices.

But Obama has something specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice’s oath to in effect be rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be partial to the poor, and so on.

I don’t think this is open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts’s confirmation, he said that Roberts didn’t have the “heart” to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, “we need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.” Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.

The reasoning here is a riot of dubious assumptions. Obama and Sotomayor both assume that a firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or the African-American or the gay or the old will automatically result in justices voting a certain (liberal) way. “I would hope,” Sotomayor said in 2001, “that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense on stilts. Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How’s that working out for liberals?

Of course, liberals say that if you don’t agree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas or abortion, it’s because you don’t care as much as they do about minorities or women. Which is why they’ve demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor. This, too, is aggressively stupid. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Judges aren’t supposed to have policy preferences, despite Ms. Sotomayor’s insistence that the courts are “where policy is made.”

More important, who says conservatives are against judicial empathy? I, for one, am all for it. I’m for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution. If that means siding with a poor black man, great. If that means siding with a rich white one, that’s great too. The same holds for gays and gun owners, single mothers and media conglomerates. We should all rejoice when justices fulfill their oaths and give everyone a fair hearing, even if that’s now out of fashion in the age of Obama.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Dear President Obama: You're kidding.... right? Comrade Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Sotomayor is also very ant-gun. She believes the Bill of Rights actually makes it illegal for ordinary citizens to own guns. So not only are we a "Nation of Cowards," we are also a nation of "Gun Carrying Criminals."
Rees

from Dear Mr. President
May 26, 2009

VIDEO: Sotomayor on the court: 'Where policy is made'...Sotomayor: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male'...Prospect's Résumé...
Self described 'Newyorican'...
MAG: The Case Against...
NBC: Would Republicans dare vote against first Hispanic Woman?
McConnell: 'Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record'...NO BIG OPINIONS ON ABORTION...

Look, Mr. President... I GET that you're very big on affirmative action, given what it's done for you... but this is absurd.

You actually WANT to appoint a Justice that directly violates judicial tenets by believing and acting on the concept of usurping legislative prerogative by making "policy" from the bench?

Once again, you've managed to frighten and disgust me.

Well done.
Click to go to the article and read the comments

Designer Guns for Women!

Women are buying guns and the market is responding by offering designer guns and accessories.

Click this link or the image to watch

NRA Conventioneers Worry Over Obama Gun Plans

from Newsmax.com
May 17, 2009

PHOENIX – Thousands of U.S. gun owners gathering in Phoenix for the National Rifle Association's convention have one target firmly in their sights: any attempt to curb gun rights by the new guys in Washington.

"We as an association, but more importantly America's 80 million gun owners, are very concerned about what may be coming down the pike through the Obama administration," Glen Caroline, grassroots director for the NRA's lobbying arm.

The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, with a long record of campaigning hard for gun rights sheltered by the U.S. Constitution. It has nearly 4 million members, 60,000 of whom were expected to attend the three-day event that began on Friday.

NRA activists and rank-and-file members say they are worried that President Barack Obama will fulfill promises to seek a permanent ban on assault weapons -- military style semi-automatic rifles -- and take other steps to tighten ownership of certain weapons.

"The question right now is not if there's a gathering storm, but when in fact that legislation is pushed more aggressively," Caroline said as activists, some in NRA caps and stars-and-stripes shirts, gathered for a buffet breakfast and workshop in a Phoenix hotel.

The NRA says Democratic control of both houses of the U.S. Congress make curbs more likely. It is organizing members to campaign for gun-friendly candidates -- usually Republicans -- in the mid-term congressional elections next year.

Many gun owners see curbs looming and are stocking up.

In the first four months of this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ran just over 5 million instant background checks on individuals applying to buy firearms from licensed dealers or at gun shows, its data shows.

This was an increase of more than 25 percent from the 3.9 million checks made over the same period last year.

Activism is also buoyant, with hundreds of members taking part in a grassroots workshop and breakfast in Phoenix. The NRA also launched a phone campaign firing up activists to object to legislation they say infringes on the right to bear arms.

"Right now is a pivotal time in our history with a president and a total administration that is anti-gun," said Leonard Junker, 56, a truck driver and Republican Party organizer from Tucson attending the workshop.

"I truly believe that they want to disarm us," he added.
© 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Must Watch Glenn Beck Video Regarding New Montana Gun Law

from MsUnderestimated.com

Sheer genius. I can’t think of words right now, so I’m just going to tell you the players and you need to watch the video. It’s a self-styled guide as to how we, as individuals, can take our country back and reclaim our individual states’ sovereignty.

Included are Utah State Representative Carl Wimmer, Texas State Representative Leo Berman, and a story about Montana’s new law stating that firearms, ammo, etc., manufactured in Montana will NOT be subject to federal laws, and these states, as well as Oklahoma (my home state) are all drafting legislation to overtly re-emphasize STATES’ RIGHTS (10th Amendment) over the Federal Government!

Utah’s Representative, Carl Wimmer, is a retired police officer. Imagine his surprise that during the time of the interview, the story passed the wires that the Obama Administration is cutting benefits by 50% for families of police officers who have died in the line of duty! WTF is Obongo doing?

FOLKS, THESE MEN ARE TRAILBLAZERS, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO WRITE, CALL, VISIT YOUR OWN STATE’S REPRESENTATIVES TO ADOPT THIS SAME RESOLUTION FURTHER STRENGTHENING THE 10TH AMENDMENT!

WE REFUSE TO BE SLAVES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! STAND UP! STAND UP WITH US! BREAK THIS CYCLE OF SLAVERY!

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN A WHILE THAT I’VE FELT HOPEFUL AND LIKE A MIRACLE IS WAITING TO HAPPEN. COME ON, PEOPLE, BE PART OF THIS! DON’T BE PART OF THE APATHY THAT KILLS THIS GREAT REPUBLIC!

Okay, enough shouting… just PLEASE do your part and make your voices heard/known in your local jurisdictions.

GOD BLESS AMERICA! And STATE SOVEREIGNTY IS PARAMOUNT!
Click to read the article and the comments

10 Lives Saved - College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader

COLLEGE PARK, Ga. -- A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape the women and then murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

Click to watch the video

A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.

“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.

The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.

Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.

“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.

One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.

Police said they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect.
Click to go to the article and watch the video

Do Democrats Want to Take Our Guns? - Does a bear...

Once government knows exactly who has the guns, could confiscation be far behind?

from Pajamas Media
May 4, 2009
by AWR Hawkins

Few things in this life are more politically divisive than guns. Generally speaking, liberals hate them and conservatives love them. Yet both history and experience teach us that few things are as integral to freedom as guns. Therefore, when liberal politicians push for more gun control, freedom-loving Americans panic because they know that an assault on guns is an assault on freedom.

Our Founding Fathers were confident of the connection between guns and freedom, and they were convinced that the American people were freer than others because of the right to keep and bear arms. Said James Madison: “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

At our nation’s birth, the Founding Fathers tried to institute a political framework that would neither tend toward mob rule (democracy) nor an overbearing central government (tyranny). They knew freedom resided somewhere between the two extremes. To prevent democracy they designated our nation a republic via a written Constitution that established indirect elections for the presidency and gave the citizens no role in electing senators, so as to preserve the rule of law instead of the rule of the majority. (Today’s direct election of senators was established by the 17th Amendment in 1913, under President Woodrow Wilson.) To prevent tyranny, the Founders established checks and balances between the various branches of government and recognized the people’s inalienable right to be armed. Alexander Hamilton surveyed the newly born nation and said: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

The great orator Patrick Henry, who demanded to be given “liberty or … death,” concurred: “The great principle is that every man be armed.”

As long as the government is not tyrannical, the government need not fear the people’s arms. Thus Madison’s observation that the federal government at our nation’s founding was not “afraid to trust the people with arms.” But if the government were to ignore its constitutional limitations and run roughshod over the people’s liberty, our Founders expected the people to rise up and preserve freedom. Said Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.”

Did you catch that? No less a man than Thomas Jefferson described as “patriots” armed citizens who refuse to let go of their liberty, even at the cost of their lives.

During the 1990s, when the Clinton administration pushed for expanded gun control laws, various people warned: “Fear the government that fears your gun.” Law-abiding citizens understood that our Founders’ worldview had been completely flipped on its head, not by ubiquitous gun ownership but by a government that feared the idea of an armed citizenry.

With the election of Barack Obama, citizens are again confronted by an administration opposed to an armed citizenry, the tenets of our Founding Fathers, and thus to freedom itself. Although Obama has only been in office for three months, various gun registry schemes have already been promoted. And during an April 7 appearance on Good Morning America, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put in plainly: “We want [guns] registered.” Of course she assured those watching Good Morning America that Democrats “don’t want to take … guns away.”

We could ask ourselves, “What’s wrong with using registration to create a list of guns and gun owners to which our president has access?” But to ask that question is to answer it. Plus, here’s a better question: “Why weren’t our Founders intent on registering firearms and their owners?” The answer to this question is as profound as it is simple. They wanted “every man” to be armed, not just certain men.

In describing the dangers of gun registration, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said: “Ultimately registration will let the government know who owns guns and what guns they own. History [then] provides the outcome: confiscation. And a people disarmed is a people in danger.”

After Hitler and the Nazis registered all the guns in Germany, millions of Jews, Christians, and handicapped persons knew firsthand the “danger” of which LaPierre speaks. They were rounded up and starved to death, or used in inhumane medical experiments, or killed outright in the death camps.

But what could those Jews, Christians, and handicapped persons do? They couldn’t fight back, for they were without guns and thus without a means to ensure their own survival, much less their freedom.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

A Yard Sign For Your Liberal Neighbor!

Thanks to Mark for forwarding this.

I would like to credit the person who created this image, but I don't know it is. Anyway, 'thank you' to whoever you are for providing me with a good laugh.
Rees

Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms? Vote your conscience!

Please vote regarding your Second Amendment Rights.

Thanks to Ron for forwarding.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

MUST READ! - The Gathering Storm Over Guns - Prepare to defend your second amendment rights

If you're not worried about losing your second amendment rights, you will be after you read how Obama as put into place all the people necessary to take away those rights. Read what they've not only said, but individually have tried to do. Imagine what they can accomplish together.

These people are already marching in locketep. They're poised and waiting, and when the time is right, they're going to go for it.
Rees

from Human Events
by Wayne LaPierre
05/01/2009

Barely 100 days into the new Obama-Biden administration, ominous storm clouds are already gathering over your most fundamental right as a free citizen: Your right to own a gun to protect yourself, your family and your freedom.

Betraying all their campaign promises to protect your right to keep and bear arms or your freedom to hunt, the Obama administration has put its chess pieces in place and set in motion its strategy to do just the opposite.

Throughout the West Wing, they’ve appointed a cabinet composed of some of the most experienced and politically effective gun grabbers Washington, D.C. has ever seen.

Meanwhile, powerful members of the U.S. Senate and House have admitted that gun bans remain a top objective, but only “when the time is right.” Which really means “when some awful tragedy conveniently captures national attention.”

Yes, Barack Obama had an extensive and extreme anti-gun voting record as an Illinois senator. Yes, he called for gun bans during the Democratic presidential primaries. But once he won his party’s nomination, Obama reversed that spin and spent millions showering key states with flyers promising voters that he would never try to take their guns. But after winning the presidency, those pro-freedom showers dried up overnight.

Pre-Election Promises Become Post-Election Perfidy

Barely 100 hours after winning the election, the Obama-Biden transition team posted an Internet web page outlining its ambitious anti-gun agenda.

Its legislative goals included permanently reinstating the Clinton gun bans, banning sale or transfer of firearms between private citizens (at gun shows and presumably anywhere else), and requiring that handguns be “childproofed” through nonexistent technology that, even if developed, would make them prohibitively expensive and far less reliable.

American voters immediately and rightfully cried foul. That’s when Obama and Biden -- who’d bragged, “I’m the guy who originally wrote the assault weapons ban” -- quickly deleted that web page from the Internet.

But they swiftly set about assembling an anti-gun all-star cabinet to achieve all that and more. Consider just a few of the gun-ban extremists who populate Obama’s inner circle.

Obama Cabinet Stacked with Anti-Gun Veterans

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel worked as President Bill Clinton’s point man on gun control. When Clinton administratively outlawed imports of many firearms and accessories, Emanuel bragged, “We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

After leaving the Clinton White House, Emanuel went on to make gun bans his stock in trade as a congressman from the anti-gun mecca of Illinois. There, he co-sponsored a bill to extend and expand the Clinton gun ban and repeatedly voted to expose America’s firearms industry to bankrupting, politically motivated lawsuits.

Attorney General Eric Holder served as deputy attorney general under Clinton, where he tried to make you get a government-issued license to exercise your Second Amendment rights.

He also pushed mandatory waiting periods, “one-gun-a-month” rationing of your rights, mandatory trigger-lock regimes and bans on ammunition magazines.

As signer of a “friend of the court” brief defending the D.C. gun ban before the U.S. Supreme Court, Eric Holder believes that -- as his own Justice Department under Janet Reno asserted -- “the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advocated gun bans long before she even assumed elective office. She helped organize the 2000 “Million Mom March,” and said of the protesters, “The moms have it right: we have to license and register all handguns.”

During her first run for the U.S. Senate, Clinton proposed that gun purchasers should be required to pass tests to obtain licenses; that all gun sales be recorded in a national registry; that new guns be logged in a “ballistic database”; that the Consumer Products Safety Commission regulate guns; and that gun purchasers be limited to one per month.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan was named “Man of the Year” by the Illinois gun-ban lobby last year, and upon his appointment in the White House, the Brady Campaign called him a “wonderful selection” for the job. Their praise is telling.

As the superintendent of Chicago Public Schools, Duncan last year bused Chicago schoolchildren to the state capital -- at taxpayer expense -- to serve as props for lobbyists pushing gun control in the state. He urged schools to have students submit entries in the annual Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence “Essay, Poetry and Art Contest.”

Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein has a long record as a radical animal “rights” advocate. In a speech at Harvard, Sunstein said, “We ought to ban hunting, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”

Sunstein has also said that livestock and wild animals should have legal “rights” and be permitted to file lawsuit; that current uses of animals are akin to “human slavery”; and that meat eating should be eliminated.

An Anti-Gun Strategy in Search of Tragedy

Though the administration and Congress haven’t publicly put gun control legislation at the top of their agenda yet, they’ve admitted they’re just waiting for the right moment to pounce.

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said so April 12 on “60 Minutes.”

When “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl asked Feinstein about the new gun bans, Feinstein allowed that she “wouldn’t bring it up now.”

But when pressed whether she would bring it up at all, Feinstein vowed, “I’m going to pick the time, and the place. No question about that.”

Despite Obama’s campaign promises and his stealthy approach to gun control since then, Feinstein made it clear on “60 Minutes” that she and her anti-gun allies are arrayed from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.

In her interview, Leslie Stahl asked, “Has anybody -- the Democratic leadership in the Senate, or anybody from the Obama administration -- looked at you and said, ‘Back off’?”

“No,” Feinstein admitted. “Nobody said a word to me.”

Like all anti-gun strategists, they’re waiting for the perfect tragedy to exploit. As of press time, the drug-fueled violence devastating Mexico appears to be it.

At a February news conference, Attorney General Holder plainly blamed Americans’ Second Amendment rights for mayhem in Mexico:

“[T]here are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make,” Holder said, “and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit at a news conference in Mexico City, claiming, “We know very well that the drug traffickers are armed by the transport of weapons from the United States.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D–Ill.), the senate’s second most powerful Democrat, lamented that “an iron river of guns from the United States arms Mexican drug cartels to the teeth,” and he blamed American gun shows for the violence.

Make no mistake: New gun bans and restrictions are very much at the top of the agenda in the White House and Congress -- even if they don’t admit it yet.

If you want to keep your most fundamental rights as a free citizen, get ready. The onslaught is planned, prepared and unprecedented. And it’s coming.

Get informed and get involved. Join the NRA. Keep up with all the news on your rights through NRAnews.com on the Internet or Sirius satellite radio Patriot channel 144.

We must stand united and ready for this fight. Considering the players, their power, their promoters and their war chest, this will be the toughest and most definitive contest to preserve firearm freedoms in America for generations to come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LaPierre is Executive Vice President and CEO of the National Rifle Association of America.
Click to read the article and the comments

Guns bought this year could outfit 2 armies

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Report cites surge that coincided with last year's election
Posted: April 30, 200910:55 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
from WorldNetDaily

Guns purchased legally in the United States this year could outfit two armies – and not just any armies, the armies of China and India, according to new government reports cited by a website for sport-shooting enthusiasts.

The federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System database statistics show there were more than 3.7 million background checks during the first three months of this year, compared to about 8 million annually not even a decade ago, according to the documentation assembled by Ammoland.com.

That's not individual guns, that's background checks, the organization pointed out. If a purchaser obtains two, three or even four guns at a time, often there is only one background check.

"You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December. Yeah, that is right, that is billion with a 'b.' This number takes no account of reloading or reloaded ammunition," the report said.

According to the Global Security website, the Indian army is estimated to have about 1 million soldiers. A news report from several years ago estimated the Chinese army at 1.7 million, although recent estimates put that at 2.25 million.

Here is a table documenting the federal gun background checks by month:

The report cites the quote from Admiral Isoruko Yamamota, a World War II leader for Japan, who said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

The report said the evaluation on firearms and ammunition purchases are "based on low end numbers."

"The numbers presented are only PART of the overall numbers of arms and ammunition that have been sold. The actual numbers are much higher."

That's because no private individual-to-individual sales would be included, and there's no assessment of how many guns are purchased through each background check.

"Law abiding citizens appear to be concerned about our 'right to own and bear arms,'" said one forum page participant.

The statistics show that U.S consumers sought 3.1 million gun background checks every three months last year, for an annual total of 12.7 million. The annual averages had been about 8.4 million for a number of recent years, but there was a surge starting last October, when check requests rose suddenly from 970,000 a month to nearly 1.2 million. Totals have remained at that higher level.

The answer is finally here to the real reason why guns and church must mix!

Another forum participant added, "It's logical that gun sales took sharp upturn. The concern is that the super majority of Democrats in Washington will make firearms either harder to obtain or outright contraband. … As for myself, I have all the weapons I could possibly need, so I've just been stocking up on ammo because I think ammo will be subject to new regulations and increased taxes under this president and Congress."

Steve Sanetti, the head of a shooting sports organization, said, "Americans concerned about their ability to purchase many types of home defense, hunting and target shooting firearms in the future are continuing to purchase these products in record numbers today."

WND reported that the usually liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" and long has been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty," so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

But the decision appears to run counter to the general direction sought by the administration of President Obama three months into his tenure.

He's already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban "assault" weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.

Obama also supported the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., before it was tossed out last year by the Supreme Court.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Dog of Navy Seal Hero killed in cold blood!

Beloved pet's killing reopens old wounds for former Navy SEAL

By DANE SCHILLER

April 9, 2009

Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

All it took was the gunshot fired outside his Walker County home to trigger training ingrained in former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, the lone survivor of a dramatic battle in Afghanistan in 2005.

He did a sweep through the house. Checked on his mother. And bolted out the door, where he found dead his beloved Labrador retriever, Dasy, a dog given to him to help him recover from his own wounds and the loss of his fellow Navy comrades.

“I could tell she tried to get away because there was a blood trail,” Luttrell recalled in a phone interview Wednesday. “When I saw she was dead, the only thing that popped into my head was, ‘I’ve got to take these guys out.’ ”

Shrouded in darkness, Luttrell, who’d just been released from the hospital after another round of surgery, crawled under a fence, skirted a ditch and sneaked up on four strangers in a sedan who apparently killed the dog on a whim. Luttrell said they were oblivious as he raised a 9 mm pistol from about 25 yards away and had one of them dead to rights.

But as the car pulled away, he didn’t fire.

Instead, he scrambled back to his pickup and launched what became a wild 40-mile chase that reached speeds of over 100 mph and crossed three counties.

“I did everything right; I didn’t do anything wrong,” he told the Houston Chronicle of the April 1 incident. “Make sure everyone knows they cold-bloodily murdered.”

Luttrell stayed on the line with a 911 emergency operator as he tried to catch the car, which was just a bit too fast for his four-door truck to overtake.

“I told them, ‘You need to get somebody out here because if I catch them I’m going to kill them,’ ” Luttrell recalled telling the operator.

Wounds still deep

The nighttime killing of a such a special dog played right into Luttrell’s deep wounds.

The 4-year-old yellow Lab was given to him upon his return from the war to help him heal. He named it Dasy as an acronym for his SEAL team members lost in a mighty fight in which they were isolated and far outnumbered by Taliban fighters.

He wrote a book, The Lone Survivor, about the experience.

Luttrell said he still wrestles with what he went through. He doesn’t sleep at night, usually keeping his guard up until sunrise, just in case.

“I don’t talk about it much. I just don’t sleep at night,” he said. “I am in and out of the house all night, going, moving around.”

Luttrell and the men he was chasing were finally stopped by Onalaska Police Department.
Luttrell said he confronted the men. “I was like, ‘Which one of you guys killed my dog?’ ” he said. “They started talking smack.”

The police sent Luttrell home, and the Texas Rangers have been working with the Walker County Sheriff’s Department.

So far, two men have been charged with felonies that could land them in state jail for at least six months.

Michael John Edmonds II, 21, and Alfonzo Hernandez, 24, both of New Waverly, are charged with cruelty to nonlivestock animals. The driver of the vehicle was arrested on suspicion of not having a license.

Other dog killings linked

There are at least five area dog killings in recent months that could be linked to the case, said Texas Ranger Steven Jeter.

“It could have been worse for both parties involved,” he said. “I wouldn’t advocate to the general public to do what he has done — to follow them at that rate of speed.”

“Marcus is trained to do certain things; he fell back on his training,” Jeter said.

Luttrell said he’s left town for now and wants to stay as far away as he can. Talking from a place he described as “the middle of nowhere,” Luttrell said he knows the attack on Dasy pushed him to a place where he doesn’t want to be.

“I was trying to talk myself out of being who I am,” he said. “Talking to myself about not doing the one thing I am good at.”
dane.schiller@chron.com

Click to read the article

Must Read Book - Lone Survivor - Marcus Luttrell

I started reading Lone Survivor yesterday and finished it around 5:30 this morning. I will say that if someone wants to really understand what war is really like and the heroes that fight these wars for us, then they should read this book. I obviously could not stop reading it. It will tear at your emotions. You will have to stop reading at certain points, and pause for awhile in order to comprehend the extent to which these heroes will fight to protect their team members. Their will to continue the fight did not end until they no longer had the physical ability to do so. They were still firing their weapons as they took their last breathe of air.
Rees

Scumbags Murder Marcus Luttrell's Dog UPDATED Partial 9-1-1 Call


Here is the Glenn Beck interview with Marcus

from the blog Cop The Truth

Veteran SEAL and Navy Cross winner Marcus Luttrell is a better man than I am, in more ways than I can count. When some PoS murdered his dog last week, Marcus had the restraint and calmness of purpose to chase the scumbags down and hold them, at gunpoint, until the Texas Rangers showed up. I'm not sure I could have managed that.

Killing people I can understand, but dogs? My hat is off to Marcus, once again, for doing the right thing when it would have been much easier and satisfying to just dump these four scumbags. Godspeed, brother. You're not alone.

Here is a little background:
Petty Officer First Class Marcus Luttrell was born in Huntsville, Texas in 1975. He was a graduate of BUD/S Class 228. He was the only survivor of the fateful events of June 28, 2005 in Afghanistan.

Luttrell and three teammates from SEAL Team TEN were assigned to a reconnaissance mission, operation RED WING, in the Hindu-Kush mountain region of Afghanistan. Their objective was to gather intelligence on Taliban movement in the area. Luttrell’s team was eventually discovered and outnumbered by over 200 Taliban fighters.

Petty Officer Luttrell was the only to survive enemy contact. In the rescue mission that ensued, 16 Special Forces personnel, including 8 SEALs, died when their helicopter was shot down from a RPG fired by Taliban fighters. It was the largest single-day loss of life in the SEALs’ history.

In 2006, Petty Officer Luttrell was awarded the Navy Cross for combat heroism. His full story is documented in his heroic account of the operation, entitled: Lone Survivor.

Marcus’s twin brother, Morgan Luttrell, is also a SEAL, still on active duty.
Click to go to the article

Military demands details on soldiers' private guns

March 21, 2009
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A military commander at Fort Campbell in Kentucky demanded his soldiers give him the registration numbers of any guns they own privately and then reveal where they are stored.

The order was stopped, according to base officials, when it was discovered the commander was not "acting within his authority."

The original order was issued on the letterhead of Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment and said effective March 11, any soldier with a "privately owned weapon" was required to submit the information, along with any information about any concealed carry permit the soldier may have, and what state issued the permit.

Further, the rule warned, "If any soldier comes into possession of a Privately Owned Weapon following the effective date of this memorandum, he is required to inform the Chain of Command of the above information."

One soldier who objected to the demands circulated the memo, commenting that he lives off post.

"It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days the most anti-firearm president in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn't provide any reason or purpose as to why," the soldier said.
Click to read the article