47% of Americans agree: armed revolt will not be necessary

Comments Off on 47% of Americans agree: armed revolt will not be necessary

Gun dealer Mel Bernstein takes down an AK-47 assault rifle from a sales rack at his own Dragonman's shooting range and gun store, east of Colorado Springs, Colo., on Feb. 5, 2013.

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Eighteen percent of Democrats said an armed revolt “might be necessary,” as compared to 27 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans. Support levels were similar among males and females but higher among less educated voters.

(The remaining 1 percent refused to answer (perhaps because they didn’t want to be placed on a government watch list. )

The poll also found that 25 percent of voters believe the American public is being lied to about the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by people seeking to promote a political agenda. An additional 11 percent said they weren’t sure.

The eye-opening findings serve as a reminder that Americans’ deeply held beliefs about gun rights have a tendency to cross over into outright conspiracy theories about a nefarious government seeking to trample their constitutional rights — paranoia that pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association have at times helped stoke. The data help explain why even the most modest gun safety laws face tremendous, intense opposition.

The poll, conducted between April 22-28, surveyed 863 randomly selected registered voters across the country and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Talking Points Memo

Advertisements

Write your representative to preserve the 2nd amendment

Comments Off on Write your representative to preserve the 2nd amendment

They are going to vote Thursday….whether it’s Constitutional or not.

Tennesseans call Lamar Alexander 202-224-4944 and Bob Corker   202-224-3344 and insist he Oppose the Motion to Proceed on S 649. (gun control)

Mark Levin says that on Thursday  April 11th, 2013 the Senate intends to vote to change the 2nd amendment without any pretense of going through the amendment process, on a bill that hasn’t even been written yet. He says that this isn’t republicanism, it’s democratic tyranny. And the senators arguing to filibuster are being demonized, but Levin says that an up and down vote on the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional, that there is no up and down vote on the Constitution.

Help Protect Your Second Amendment Rights!

  1. Send the prewritten email below or to write your own, click here!
  2. Fill out form below to write your lawmakers today!  After filling out the form, you may then select its recipients by checking or unchecking their names.

Before you can take action, we need to learn more about you.

03222013-Protect-Your-Rights

Send the email here:

The Left Is Convinced Americans Won’t Fight For 2nd Amendment Rights

Comments Off on The Left Is Convinced Americans Won’t Fight For 2nd Amendment Rights

They are badly mistaken I believe….

second amendment SC The Left Is convinced Americans wont fight for 2nd Amendment rights

Once cowed at the thought of provoking Second Amendment supporters, leftists will soon attempt to ban “assault weapons” (and much more) as legislation offered by Dianne Feinstein makes its way to the Senate floor. It seems that D.C. liberals have finally become convinced that American gun owners are too cowardly, too lazy or too dependent upon the generosity of Big Brother to fight for their Second Amendment rights.

During the past four years, the gun banning-Left have watched as American buyers broke sales records in the purchase of semi-automatic rifles.  Opting for these and other powerful, efficient weapons, it is estimated that some 100 million private citizens are now in possession of over 300 million firearms. And these numbers continue to grow with each passing month.

Yet it’s against this backdrop of America’s unprecedented determination to assert the fundamental permanence of Second  Amendment guarantees that Diane Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama and others will choose to implement gun bans, demand the federal registration of firearms, and even legislate outright confiscation.

Maybe Democrats are confident that fallout from Sandy Hook will provide the floor votes necessary to  disarm the American people. But if the Left is willing to risk picking this fight with millions of American gun owners, it must also believe something far more important—that Americans who have spent years arming themselves against the ultimate expression of tyranny by their own government–the overthrow of the Second Amendment– will choose to not fight when the time finally comes.

For decades, the Left have watched Americans simply “lie down” before every imaginable outrage and legislative assault on our liberty. The Constitution has been prostituted by power-hungry, America-hating Marxists in Congress, on the federal bench and in the White House. Elected officials have laughed when asked to provide Constitutional authority for the passage of massively unpopular pieces of legislation. Tax dollars are insolently manipulated to purchase votes, grease the skids of questionable legislation, and add to the wealth of bureaucrats and elected officials. And through it all, Americans are robbed of more and more liberty as we do nothing but “vote ‘em in and cuss ‘em out” every two years.

Liberals have come to depend upon the willingness of Americans to subordinate their desire for liberty to the wishes and whims of the political ruling class. The cowardly are rewarded for relenting while those with the courage to question dictatorial authority and refuse to submit are accused of domestic terrorism. And all who press their own beliefs—or worse, those of the nations’ Founders– are met with ridicule or intimidation in what was at one time a nation of free, thinking individuals.

In short, the Left has come to expect cowardice or disinterested submission from a people trained for decades to accept as given that the good intentions of their elected betters are sufficient to fulfill the requirements of constitutional authority.  And it’s a safe bet neither Democrats nor RINO’s will expect anything different from the majority of Americans this time around as Feinstein and Company legislate last rites and a funeral for the Second Amendment.

We know what the Left believe. We’ll soon find out if they are right.

Western Journalism

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

Republicans Join Democrats to Destroy Second Amendment

Comments Off on Republicans Join Democrats to Destroy Second Amendment

It is sad to see America slowly disarmed just as the founders feared would happen in some distant future, next after the assault weapons ban will come the ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty. That will lead to the banning of hand guns eventually after the school shootings and such continue with hand guns then. What will be left then, shotguns?  They will be banned as well when all is said and done. Then as Nikita Khrushchev said November 18, 1956., “We will bury you without firing a shot”, that will have happened, but not by Russia.

2nd amendment:

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.

What part of “shall not be infinged” don’t they understand?

In addition to surrendering to the Democrat instinct to tax Americans into oblivion, Republicans in Congress are prepared to go along with knee-jerk legislation rolling back the Second Amendment in the coming year.

“Put guns on the table. Also, put video games on the table. Put mental health on the table,” Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia said last week as the Republican leadership signaled it is ready to chip away at the right to own firearms.

Kingston said Republicans are likely to move on more anti-gun legislation after a “grief stage” in response to the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting.

“In the coming days and weeks, we will engage in a meaningful conversation and thoughtful debate about how to change laws and culture that allow violence to grow,” said formerly pro-Second Amendment Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “And every idea should be on the table as we discuss how best to do just that.”

Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Chuck Grassley of Iowa are ready to trade off the Second Amendment in order to make a political deal with Democrats. “You’ve got to take all these things into consideration,” Grassley said.

Grassley also believes the federal government should legislate on societal issues. He said Congress needs to discuss a culture that “tends to be less civil now than it has been for a long period of time.”

Arguing that Republicans must abandon libertarian principles in order “to remain relevant in a country whose views are changing,” the Associated Press cites a Washington Post/ABC News poll published last week in the wake of the Connecticut shooting that shows 54 percent of Americans surveyed want restrictions placed on the Second Amendment.

For statist Republicans, relevance is all the rage. Following the shooting in Connecticut, former Republican congressman from Florida, Joe Scarborough, easily betrayed the Constitution. “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand, for my children,” he said.

“The party is at a point where it wants to have those discussions in public, where people feel comfortable differing from what is perceived as the party orthodoxy,” said Republican consultant Dan Hazelwood, revealing the sad fact that Republican fealty to the Second Amendment and thus the Constitution at large is waning.

Retiring Republican Ron Paul responded to this sudden political sea change on the part of his colleagues.

“Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided,” Paul said after the massacre. “The impulse to have government ‘do something’ to protect us in the wake of national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws. The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters would be dissuaded or stopped. While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings. I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence.”

Ron Paul criticized reaction to the shooting by the NRA. Following the shooting, NRA boss Wayne LaPierre said the state should respond by placing more armed cops and guards in public education schools.

Paul rightly saw this as an excuse to expand an already bloated police state:

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?  We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders.  This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.  School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

Republicans in Congress will vote with Democrats to further erode the Second Amendment. The establishment is now exploiting the Sandy Hook shooting to accomplish its long-term objective of disarming the American people.

No state can strip its citizens of their natural rights if they are armed and if a large number of them understand the principles behind the Constitution and the real reason for the Second Amendment.

Read article

Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Control Policy

Comments Off on Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Control Policy

You can bet our fearless leader will find a way around the Constitution whether legal, Constitutional or not……

“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.”

Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House’s options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments — on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.

Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”

Earlier in the day, House Democrats joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to offer another possible starting point, announcing legislation that would make fundamental changes to the nation’s gun background check system. Sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a longtime gun control advocate, the bill mirrors one introduced late last month by another New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer.

“Too often, any serious discussion about guns devolves into ideological arguments that have nothing to do with the real problem,” Bloomberg, a co-founder of the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told reporters at a press event outside the Capitol. “Our coalition strongly believes in the Second Amendment. We also know from experience that we can keep guns away from dangerous people without imposing burdens on law-abiding gun owners.”

For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising — albeit more limited — vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law. ( I have news for these guys, to change the 2nd amendment, you MUST amend the Constitution…not pass a law banning it or make a policy change to ban it)

Read more from the left leaning Huffington Post

UPDATED: NBC’s Bob Costas Blames NFL Murder-Suicide On Guns

2 Comments

Bob Costas, discussing the murder-suicide of NFL’s Jovan Belcher, went on a gun rant during halftime of NBC’s Sunday Night Football for gun control. How’s that gun control working for you in Chicago. Sad to use a tragedy to advance ones own agenda.

Ted Nugent said “Bob Costas is Dead Wrong” published in the Washington Times last Thursday, saying, “If there were a free speech penalty for blundering ignorance, a penalty flag would have been tossed at Mr. Costas.”

Costas also, Nugent argues, willfully ignores the countless times an NFL player’s death was caused by something other than guns, demonstrating the gun-grabber’s glaring hypocrisy:

“What Mr. Costas didn’t say and possibly doesn’t know is that 2 million Americans use guns each year to defend themselves from punks and thugs. Access to guns saves an incalculable number of lives each year. How about that, Mr. Costas?”

“Just a few years ago, a drunk NFL football player ran over a guy and killed him. As I recall, the player paid off the family of the deceased and only did 30 days in the slammer. Where was Mr. Costas on this? Did he opine that easy access to alcohol and automobiles was responsible for this death? To those liberals who want to restrict or ban access to guns, do you also support banning booze because drunks kill roughly 12,000 Americans each year in drinking-and-driving slaughters?”

Nugent concludes with a recommendation to “not trust any fuzzy-headed goofball” using “liberal fairyland pseudologic.”

“We have more than enough gun laws in America. Another law or restriction would not have prevented the Kansas City Chief murderer from killing his girlfriend or himself. That’s the ugly reality that Mr. Costas obviously refuses to embrace.”

After a firestorm of criticism, Costas, rather than recall his statements, instead showed up on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Chris O’Donnell defending his unmistakable attack on the Second Amendment, pointing out that “65 out of 80 Colts players admitted to owning guns” and that “Even if all those guns were obtained legally, you can’t have 65 guys in their 20′s and 30′s, aggressive young men subject to impulses, without something bad happening.” NBC Sports broadcaster Costas claims there are no examples of athletes using guns to neutralize dangerous situations.

Nugent recently found himself in a Secret Service “stranglehold” after he compared the Obama administration and Democrats to a coyote that’s broken into your living room: “It’s good people who bent over and let the enemy in. If the coyote’s in your living room pissing on your couch, it’s not the coyote’s fault. It’s your fault for not shooting him.” Days later he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

NewsBusters reported Saturday the tragic murder-suicide involving a Kansas City Chiefs’ football player and his girlfriend.

During halftime of NBC’s Sunday Night Football, Bob Costas chose to lecture America about how guns were to blame for the incident concluding, “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today” (video follows with transcript and


Read more

Older Entries