We’re NOT Giving Up Our Guns – A History of Gun Control

Comments Off on We’re NOT Giving Up Our Guns – A History of Gun Control

Here’s a local West Tennessean , James Yeager on the History of Gun Control.

15 Yr Old Boy Uses Dad’s AR-15 to Shoot Invader

1 Comment

This is why we need our guns…..they are not just for hunting. You might also be interested in this: California Homeowner Shoots and Kills Armed Home Invader-wounds two others,which also just happened.

Petition: Try Dianne Feinstein For Treason

2 Comments

This petition won’t go anywhere, but it will bring attention to what Feinstein is trying to do, which is legislate the 2nd amendment away…the only Consitutional way to void the 2nd amendment is to amend the Constitution and that would require 3/4 of the States to go along with it. That will never happen.

The latest White House petition garnering attention demands that Senator Dianne Feinstein be tried in federal court for treason against the constitution for her role in introducing legislation that would go a long way to repealing the second amendment.

The full text of the petition reads;

The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.

Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.

As we have previously explained, although the White House asserts that it will respond to all petitions that reach 25,000 signatures within 30 days, the Obama administration has instead cherry picked which ones it addresses.

The petition to try Feinstein for treason currently has over 1700 signatures and is climbing rapidly. A separate petition calling for Feinstein, “to be immediately banned from the United States Senate and….prohibited from ever again holding public office in the United States of America,” also has over 1600 signatures.

Despite receiving over a million signatures in total, none of the secession petitions that flooded the White House.gov website last month have been addressed over 45 days later.

The petition calling on Feinstein to be tried for treason is a response to the California Senator’s announcement that she will introduce new legislation early next year that will criminalize millions of American gun owners if approved.

Feinstein’s bill will outlaw guns with magazines over 10 rounds, require a national fingerprint database of all gun owners and ban nearly all handguns.

As Mike Adams explains, “If Sen. Feinstein’s outrageous, unconstitutional and freedom-crushing proposal becomes law, it would require all gun owners to register the serial numbers of all their guns with the federal government. They would have to supply fingerprints, undergo a new round of background checks, and somehow get the “permission” of a local police chief or Sheriff who will vouch for them. This is Feinstein’s wicked way of essentially criminalizing ALL gun ownership by American citizens.”

The legislation has caused outrage amongst second amendment activists because it closely resembles Adolf Hitler’s 1938 Nazi Weapons Law which itself was virtually mirrored by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

According to some observers, Feinstein’s bill represents an act of “political suicide” because it is so extreme that it has little chance of passing and will cost the Democrats untold political capital.

Read article

Hobby Lobby Plan To Defy Obamacare To Cost $1.3 Million Per Day

Comments Off on Hobby Lobby Plan To Defy Obamacare To Cost $1.3 Million Per Day

Can’t blame Hobby Lobby, no matter what the SCOTUS ruled, Obamacare is unconstitutional, so the mandate is as well.

An attorney for Hobby Lobby Stores said Thursday that the arts and crafts chain plans to defy a federal mandate requiring it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill, despite risking potential fines of up to $1.3 million per day.

Hobby Lobby and religious book-seller Mardel Inc., which are owned by the same conservative Christian family, are suing to block part of the federal health care law that requires employee health-care plans to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception pills.

The companies claim the mandate violates the religious beliefs of their owners. They say the morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman’s womb.

On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the companies’ request for an injunction while their lawsuit is pending, saying the stores failed to satisfy the demanding legal standard for blocking the requirement on an emergency basis. She said the companies may still challenge the regulations in the lower courts.

Kyle Duncan, who is representing Hobby Lobby on behalf of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement posted on the group’s website Thursday that Hobby Lobby doesn’t intend to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.

“The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”

In ruling against the companies last month, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton said churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions but that “Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations.”

Read more

Is The Second Amendment Really Just for Hunting?

Comments Off on Is The Second Amendment Really Just for Hunting?

“[M]ilitary-style weapons are precisely what the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”….got this from Bryan Fischer on AFR.

My friend Brett Joshpe has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he calls “sensible” gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (“As a conservative and a Republican, I can no longer remain silent . . . Some will consider it heresy,” etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are “disingenuous”), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences), fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case.

Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.

There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

“Usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers” — not Bambi, not burglars. While your granddad’s .30-06 is a good deal more powerful than the .223 rifles that give blue-state types the howling fantods, that is not what we have a constitutional provision to protect. Liberals are forever asking: “Why would anybody need a gun like that?” And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. If you doubt that, consider the history of arms control in England, where members of the Catholic minority (and non-Protestants generally) were prohibited from bearing arms as part of the campaign of general political oppression against them. The Act of Disenfranchisement was still in effect when our Constitution was being written, a fact that surely was on the mind of such Founding Fathers as Daniel Carroll, to say nothing of his brother, Archbishop John Carroll.

Power corrupts. Madison knew that, and the other Founders did, too, which is why we have a Second Amendment.

Continue reading