Posts Tagged ‘Self Defense’
Earlier today, 7 anti-gun bills were defeated in the senate (2 more remain to be voted on Thursday).
Never one to take defeat graciously, Obama threw a full-blown tantrum in the bully pulpit, using Gabby Giffords and the Newtown families as political props as he declared the Senate vote “shameful” and slammed 2nd Amendment advocates as “liars.”
With the failure of the Democrats’ attempt to exploit the Newtown school shooting to press forward gun control measures, President Obama took to the microphones along with the relatives of Sandy Hook victims to demonize his opposition. This, of course, was his strategy all along: knowing that he did not have 60 votes in the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass his gun control legislation, he pressed forward anyway, hoping to paint Republicans as intransigent, immoral tools of the gun lobby who don’t care about dead children. After demonizing Republicans, Obama hopes, he can press Americans into voting Democrats back into power in the House of Representatives.
On Wednesday afternoon, Obama played his part to perfection. Mark Barden, father of a first-grader murdered in Newtown, introduced him. Flanking Obama were other Newtown victims; Vice President Joe Biden, face creased in supposed emotional agony, his arm around the mother of a Sandy Hook victim; and former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who has been one of the lead advocate for gun control on behalf of the administration.
“On behalf of the Sandy Hook parents, I would like to thank President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden,” said Mark Barden, father of a first-grader murdered in Newtown. “We will not be defeated. We are not defeated and we will not be defeated ….. I’d like to end by repeating the words by which the Sandy Hook promise begins: Our hearts are broken. Our spirit is not.”
He then introduced President Obama, who blasted away in a carefully calculated and calibrated assault on gunowners, Republicans, and all those with the temerity to disagree on his gun control proposals. Lashing out with more emotion than he has on any issue of his presidency, Obama played up to the cameras, all the while using gun violence victims as a backdrop.
Obama said that he had acted in response to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and Sandy Hook. “Families that had known unspeakable grief,” Obama said, reached out “to protect the lives of all children …. A few minutes ago, a minority in the Senate decided it wasn’t worth it.” Standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook has become rote for this president.
[...] All of this was setup for the coup de grace: a request for more power. Because, after all, Obama was never going to win this debate. He didn’t have the votes, he didn’t have the evidence, and he didn’t have a decent piece of legislation to propose. What he did have was unbridled faux moral indignation and a compliant press.
But he needs more. He needs a majority in the House. And he asked for it. “So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington. But this effort is not over,” said Obama. “If this Congress refuses to listen … the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.”
“The memories of these children demand [gun control],” Obama concluded.
What he meant was obvious: the memories of dead children in Sandy Hook demands that voters give Obama more Senators and more Congresspeople. How convenient for him.
Neither Obama nor the media are interested in hearing from family members of gun violence victims who opposed his gun control scheme, such as this father from Newtown, and the father of 9-year-old Christina Green, who was shot and killed in the Tuscon attack.
They’re only interested in exploiting those grieving families they can use to forward their own political agenda.
This is one of the reasons why it is an incredibly dangerous conflict of interest for the government to be shaping the hearts and minds of future voters. Clearly, the Left wants the next generation of Americans to believe that they have no unalienable right to self-defense, from the government or anyone else. They start by indoctrinating the young.
The Left knows it’s better to apologize after the fact than ask for permission. The seeds of deception have already been planted in these kids’ minds. They’ll let the outrage settle down, and then try again. This is why parents should have the choice to send their children to a school that isn’t out to indoctrinate their kids!
The father of a Connecticut child is furious after discovering that his son’s school is teaching students that Americans don’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
“I am appalled,” said Steven Boibeaux, of Bristol. “It sounds to me like they are trying to indoctrinate our kids.”
Boibeaux’s son is an eighth grader at Northeast Middle School. On Monday his social studies teacher gave students a worksheet titled, ‘The Second Amendment Today.’
“The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms,” the worksheet states. “The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.
The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, goes on to say that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.
“This means that the rights of this amendment are not extended to the individual citizens of the states,” the worksheet reads. “So a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws.”
According to the document, the Second Amendment “only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard.”
Boibeaux said he discovered the worksheet as he was going over his son’s homework assignments.
“I’m more than a little upset about this,” he told Fox News. “It’s not up to the teacher to determine what the Constitution means.”
Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, called the lesson propaganda – that is “absolutely false.”
“In fact, the US Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment ensures the individual the right to bear arms,” Staver told Fox News. “The progressive interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it doesn’t give you the right to bear arms – that it’s a corporate right of the government – but that has been rejected by the Courts.”
The Senate voted earlier to block the U.S. from joining the treaty, but Obama is likely to sign it anyway.
He’s already heading out onto the never-ending campaign trail to stump for more gun control. He wants to stir up public pressure to force the Senate to ratify it. If they do, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights good-bye.
This morning, by a vote of 154 nations in favor (including the United States), 23 abstentions, and three against (Syria, North Korea, and Iran), the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty will be open for national signature on June 3, 2013, and will enter into force for its signatories when it has been signed and ratified by 50 nations.
Though the vote in favor of the treaty seems overwhelming, a closer look shows something different. Among the major exporting and importing nations, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Russia abstained. So did most of the Arab Group, as well as a range of anti-American regimes, including Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, and a smattering of others, including Belarus, Burma, and Sri Lanka.
A further 13 nations did not vote, including some known opponents of the treaty, such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Finally, while Pakistan voted in favor of the treaty, its statement in explanation implied that it was voting for the treaty because it anticipated that India would abstain, and it wanted to look good by comparison.
Thus, what the U.N. vote amounts to is the tacit rejection of the treaty by most of the world’s most irresponsible arms exporters and anti-American dictatorships, who collectively amount to half of the world’s population.
Ken Klukowski warns, “What Americans Need To Know About The UN Gun Control Treaty“:
Today the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a global gun control treaty called the Arms Trade Treaty. Now the fight begins here at home. There are several things gun owners need to know to protect their constitutional rights.
Now that it’s been proposed, the treaty goes to all the member states to decide on whether to join. Per the U.S. Constitution, in America it must first be signed by the president (which it will), then be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate (which it won’t). The United States is not likely to join the treaty as a nation, though President Barack Obama will likely push for it.
The General Assembly can’t do anything at the United Nations except propose (not establish) treaties and admit new U.N. members. Most of the power at the U.N. is in the Security Council, which consists of five permanent members (including the U.S.) and ten rotating seats among all the other U.N. members. So the General Assembly did one of the only things it can by recommending this treaty to its member states.
However, the first danger is that U.S. courts have held we’re bound by “customary international law,” sometimes called the “law of nations.” If enough U.N. member states were to adopt this treaty, a liberal federal court could rule it has become customary international law. The current Supreme Court would never affirm such a ruling, but there is a real danger if Obama changes the balance of the Court over the next three years.
Because federal statutes and treaties are of equal force under the U.S. Constitution, whenever they are in direct conflict, the most-recently passed of the two prevails. So, if somehow this treaty were ratified by the Senate, if Congress were to later pass a statute taking the opposite position, it would trump the treaty.
Of course, you need a president’s signature to pass a statute or two-thirds of Congress to override a presidential veto, so we would need a president in 2016 who supports the Second Amendment to pass such a law.
[...] The dangers are obvious, however. If Barack Obama manages to get an anti-gun politician like Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo to follow him in 2016 as president, and changes the balance of the Supreme Court over time, then the Arms Trade Treaty could open America up to a worldwide U.N. gun control regime. That could lay the groundwork and set up a system that a decade or two from now could restrict lawful firearm ownership in this nation.
If the goal is to save lives, liability insurance isn’t going to do it. But of course, this isn’t really about saving lives. It’s about control. It’s about putting up as many hurdles as they can think of between the average, law-abiding American and their right to self-defense.
A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.
When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”
Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.
It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.
Want to guess who this would hurt most? You got it: poor people living in dangerous neighborhoods, who would be barred from defending themselves due to the high cost of insurance.
The smart ones will go to the black market and arm themselves anyway.
It’s very possible that innocent people are going to die because their local police cannot get access to the tools they need to train and adequately defend their fellow citizens. If that day comes, I hope DHS is held responsible for hoarding resources that local law enforcement desperately need.
The nationwide shortage of ammunition has left many police departments scrambling to get their hands on the necessary rounds – with some even bartering among each other.
Meanwhile, Rep. Timothy Huelskamp (R-Kansas) says the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has failed to respond to multiple members of Congress asking why DHS bought more than 1.6 billion rounds in the past year.
Police Chief Cameron Arthur of Jenks, Oklahoma says, “Ammunition and assault weapons in general have skyrocketed…In addition to the fact, not only is it a lot more expensive, but the time to get it could be six months to a year, or in some cases even longer.”
Arthur says he is waiting on an order placed last October and that many departments have begun to trade and barter with each other because of the high demand.
“Most police departments are having a very difficult time even getting the necessary ammunition for handguns, shotguns and especially rifles,” Arthur said.
“With the delay in ammunition, some departments are limiting the number of rounds they carry in their handgun because of the shortage of ammunition. We get to the point where it is difficult to have enough ammo to train and also equip the officers.”
Chief Pryor of Rollingwood, Texas says of the shortage:
“We started making phone calls and realized there is a waiting list up to a year. We have to limit the amount of times we go and train because we want to keep an adequate stock.”
“Nobody can get us ammunition at this point,” says Sgt. Jason LaCross of the Bozeman, Montana police department.
Doug Ross presents a concerning list of news reports, in light of this crisis:
1. The Department of Homeland Security recently acquired 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, which represents thousands of rounds per DHS employee.
2. Newly released drone records have revealed extensive military flights inside the U.S.; police departments and federal agencies plan to have as many as 30,000 drones monitoring Americans within the next seven years.
3. When Can the U.S. Kill Americans? The White House Won’t Say — and Won’t Even Tell Congress; President Obama’s successful efforts to renew and strengthen The Patriot Act under the NDAA means, according to the ACLU, American citizens may be subject to “indefinite military detention without charge or trial… for the first time in American history.”
4. The FBI director said in March he’d have to check whether the president can assassinate citizens inside the U.S.. When questioned by Congress regarding a speech by Attorney General Holder, who offered his “legal justification for assassination”, FBI Director Mueller was unable to say whether the president could unilaterally decide to assassinate U.S. citizens inside the borders of this country.
5. The DHS has specifically listed Americans who believe in “individual liberty” as potential terrorists. These “right-wing extremists” who insist in fidelity to the Constitution are, according to multiple studies funded by DHS, among the country’s most dire terrorist threats. Not Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Ansar al-Islam, Hamas, or Iran’s Revolutionary Guards — together responsible for tens of thousands of murders — but “violent right-wing extremists” who believe in the principles of the nation’s founding.
6. The military recently deployed gunships over Miami, executing training exercises with local police departments. A few days later, similarexercises were conducted in Houston. Last year the military deployed ground forces, armored personnel carriers and tanks on the streets of St. Louis for “training exercises”. Military exercises in domestic urban environments of this scale are “unprecedented”.
7. Police departments throughout the country are receiving tanks, humvees and drones from the Department of Defense, according to a WLS-TV (Chicago) I-Team investigation. “Short of a weapon of mass destruction, you can get any kind of military gear that’s out there,” the police chief of Benedectine University told WLS. “We chose firearms and a vehicle.” WLS also reported rampant theft of military equipment, including body armor and night-vision goggles issued to the Chicago Police Department.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Do these data points offer any context into President Obama’s promise to create “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military?”
Conversely, do these news reports offer any insights into the president’s efforts to disarm American citizens, a clear violation of the Bill of Rights?
The tyrants at the UN won’t be satisfied until every citizen capable of resisting them world-wide is disarmed into sitting ducks. If just 2/3 of the Senate votes to ratify this treaty, our gun rights will be in serious jeopardy.
The fact that Democrats are willing to take the side of other nations against their own fellow citizens’ constitutional right to self-defense reveals how traitorous they truly are.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said there was not enough support to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein the stand-alone vote she demands on the “assault weapon” ban, but the upper chamber may soon be the deciding factor in whether the United States ratifies an international treaty that could strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.
On Monday, the United States joined in the nine day conference in New York to finalize negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty is intended to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons, but depending how the final document is worded, it could put at risk Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.
The countries were negotiating the draft last July, but stopped when the U.S. asked for a delay. Many believe Mr. Obama pushed the issue past Election Day in order not to further alienate gun owners. Now that he has more “flexibility” in his second term, the U.S. is back at the table.
Secretary of State John Kerry has encouraged reaching consensus by March 28. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” he wrote in a statement Friday.
[...] Mr. Obama will likely go ahead and sign the treaty as it is. Then the only thing standing in the way of the U.N. stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights is if he can get two-thirds of the Senate to ratify.
Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.
Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
We have noted that a paper by the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been “misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons.”
Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a “misuse?”
[...] Last Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty. The resolution states the U.N. proposal “places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality” and represents a threat to U.S. national security.
Our Constitution is unambiguous in its protection of gun rights. The ATT is not.
Interestingly, just as the world’s worst human rights violators have sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America’s enemies, was elected to a top position at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in New York last July.
The U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.
The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.
Somehow, administration assurances that the treaty won’t infringe on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t reassure us.
UPDATE: Defeated in the Senate 53-46. We dodged a bullet…this year.
Veteran Stands Up For 2nd Amendment At Chicago Anti-Gun Forum
View on YouTube
What a slap in the face to our brave men and women who fought to defend our freedoms, including the 2nd Amendment!
How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.
What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.
The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.
Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.
Veterans are being declared incompetent not because they have a serious mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others, but because they have a physical disability resulting from their service in the armed forces or because they simply let their spouses pay the family bills.
If veterans have minor issues with PTSD, have expressed that they are depressed sometimes, or even in the case of Vietnam veterans admit that they are getting older and sometimes forget to pay their bills on time, the bureaucrats at the VA will seek to declare them incompetent. (I am a 65 year old veteran and often forget where I put my car keys, does that make me incompetent to handle my own financial affairs and even worse mean that I can’t own a firearm?) According to the VA it apparently does.
All of this has resulted in America’s heroes being declared incompetent by a process that blatantly violates their rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Then, for reasons that have not been explained these same veterans are also being denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Many of the veterans I have heard from were initially both scared because of what was happening to them, and hurt because it is their own government that is causing this fear. After all, when they joined the military they signed a blank check to their country to defend it and its Constitution even if it cost them their lives. Yet, now their own government is turning on them and taking from them the very Constitutional rights they fought to preserve.
However, now something else is happening; the fear and betrayal that these veterans felt is turning to anger. Their training and instincts as warriors is coming forth and they are once again prepared to fight for their rights and the rights of other Americans. I think that the Obama administration has picked a fight with the wrong dog. Veterans are fighting back.
Here we go…more bullying of innocent children by the paranoid, overly-sensitive “politically correct” crowd.
BALTIMORE – A 7-year-old Maryland boy has been suspended from school after biting his breakfast pastry into a shape that his teacher thought looked like a gun.
Josh Welch, a second-grader at Park Elementary School in Baltimore, said he was trying to nibble his strawberry Pop Tart into a mountain.
“It was already a rectangle and I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top and it kinda looked like a gun but it wasn’t,” Josh said. “All I was trying to do was turn it into a mountain but it didn’t look like a mountain really and it turned out to be a gun kinda.”
But when his teacher saw what he had done, the boy says she got “pretty mad” and he knew he was “in big trouble.”
Josh’s dad was called by the school and informed that his son had been suspended for two days.
The sight of a pastry in the shape of a gun has been deemed so traumatic, the school is offering counseling to any students whose irrational fear of pop tarts might have been triggered.
A Baltimore area elementary school recently suspended a seven year old boy for chewing a breakfast pastry into a shape resembling a gun. There also seems to be some dispute over whether the boy said “bang bang” after doing so (some also claim there might have been a second Pop-Tarter on the grassy knoll).
For any students who were traumatized by the frightening toaster strudel ordeal, counseling is available:
The school sent home a letter to parents saying, “During breakfast this morning, one of our students used food to make inappropriate gestures that disrupted the class. While no physical threats were made and no one was harmed, the student had to be removed from the classroom.”
Parents should talk to their children if they’re troubled by the incident, the school said, and the school counselor will be available for any student who needs to talk.
It’s been pointed out that because the Pop Tart had a filling, the pastry weapon was likely considered to be loaded — a much more egregious zero-tolerance violation indeed — hence the suspension.
The letter sent to the parents of students is here. The educators will now undoubtedly insist that any Pop Tarts consumed on school property undergo a mandatory 24-hour cooling off period after coming out of the toaster.
Pundit and Pundette wonders why more conservatives aren’t pulling their kids out of government schools that are inflicting this kind of abuse and indoctrination on their children:
Creating irrational fears in children is abusive. Also damaging to young souls and minds is the institutionalized squelching of the imagination and the subverting of rationality (kids know that gun-shaped Pop Tarts can’t hurt them), both evident in the Pop Tart incident. One wonders if the cogs in this machine ever speculate on the real purpose behind bureaucratic promotion of absurd, arbitrary rules, baseless fears, and mental paralysis. Hint: In what kind of society is a cowering populace a necessity?
[...] But what about conservative parents? I wondered yesterday, via Twitter, why more of them don’t homeschool, and I got some interesting responses, including a couple of Tweets to the effect of, “Because we’re working!” Surely no one imagines that only affluent families homeschool their children. It’s just not the case.
I’m guessing that, though conservatives deplore this story and others like it, they’re still pretty satisfied with their own public schools, the defects of which aren’t great enough, in their view, to warrant pulling the kids out and taking personal charge of their education. Homeschooling can mean a huge lifestyle change, and it’s a lot of work. If the easy,* “free,” default way of doing things ain’t broke, why fix it?
But I think the reelection of President Obama proved beyond a doubt that our education system is very badly broken. From a November 2012 post:
David Gelernter has a partial explanation for the degradation of the electorate. It’s the schools, stupid:
. . . you can’t graduate class after class after class of left-indoctrinated ignoramuses without paying the price. Last night was a downpayment.
The switch to homeschooling can be a daunting prospect, especially for two-income households. But the benefits it bestows on the family make it an educational option worth serious consideration, even if you “can’t afford it” or find it unacceptably uncool. I for one am grateful that Big Brother still allows it.
In the light of the spate of school shootings over the past decade, school staff have justified cause to raise alarm over REAL guns brought onto school grounds without permission. Instead of dealing with the threat of crazed gunmen, however, they seem content to merely punish those who heroically take them down:
A 16-year-old student from Fort Myers, Fla., was suspended for three days after he wrestled a loaded gun away from another student on the school bus.
The Cypress Lake High School student grappled a loaded .22-caliber RG-14 revolver away from the 15-year-old suspect on the ride home Tuesday.
Witnesses say the suspect, a football player, aimed the weapon point-blank at a teammate and threatened to shoot him.
“I think he was really going to shoot him right then and there,” said the student who wrestled the gun away and who requested to be unidentified.
“No doubt he was going to shoot him point-blank,” he added.
According to Fox4Now.com, the student was suspended for his role in an “incident” in which a weapon was present and given an “emergency suspension.”
“It’s dumb,” he said. “How they going to suspend me for doing the right thing?”
But don’t worry. The security team that can’t discern between a gunman and hero will be sure to protect you from cupcakes featuring plastic army men. Wouldn’t want you to suffer PTSD, or anything.
What is this, the Soviet Union? Neighbors narking you out to the cops because they don’t like a photo you posted?
New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.
“Someone called family services about the photo,” said Evan Nappen, an attorney representing Shawn Moore. “It led to an incredible, heavy-handed raid on his house. They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house. They even threatened to take his kids.”
Moore was not arrested or charged. [...]
Moore, of Carneys Point, is a certified firearms instructor for the National Rifle Association, an NRA range safety officer and a New Jersey hunter education instructor.
He recently posted a photograph of his son wearing camouflage and holding his new .22 rifle. The child has a New Jersey hunting license and recently passed the state’s hunter safety course.
“If you look at the picture, his finger isn’t even on the trigger – which is proper,” Nappen told Fox News. “If half of Hollywood could follow that rule we’d be thankful.”
Brown said their role is not to go out and search Facebook for photos of children holding weapons.
“In general our role is to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect,” she said.
The family’s trouble started Saturday night when Moore received an urgent text message from his wife. The Carneys Point Police Dept. and the New Jersey Dept. of Children and Families had raided their home.
Moore immediately called Nappen and rushed home to find officers demanding to check his guns and his gun safe.
Instead, he handed the cell phone to one of the officers – so they could speak with Nappen.
“If you have a warrant, you’re coming in,” Nappen told the officers. “If you don’t, then you’re not. That’s what privacy is all about.”
With his attorney on speaker phone, Moore instructed the officers to leave his home.
“I was told I was being unreasonable and that I was acting suspicious because I wouldn’t open my safe,” Moore wrote on the Delaware Open Carry website. “They told me they were going to get a search warrant. I told them to go ahead.”
Moore took this photo of police outside his home.
Nappen told Fox News the police wanted to inventory his firearms.
“”We said no way, it’s not happening,” he said. “This is a guy who is completely credentialed and his son is also credentialed.”
The attorney said police eventually left and never returned.
[...] “To make someone go through this because he posted a picture of his son with a .22 rifle on his Facebook page is pretty outrageous,” he said. “Does that mean that anyone who posts a picture like that has to consent to a home inspection and a gun inspection? I don’t think so.”
Oregon Sen. Ginny Burdick, one of the top Democrats leading the charge on the massive anti-gun legislation HB 3200, originally scheduled a town hall to meet with her constituents and Portland State University on March 4th at 7 p.m. When citizens concerned about her bill found out, they passed out fliers encouraging anybody who cared about gun rights to attend and make their voices heard:
When Burdick found out that the townhall was going to attract more than her usual sycophant crowd, she promptly canceled the event, citing a “scheduling conflict.” Having spared herself the inconvenience of having to listen to constituent concerns over her gun-grabbing agenda, she thought the controversy was over. It was just beginning.
A citizen journalist decided to borrow a “60 Minutes” tactic and sit outside Burdick’s house with a camera to see if she actually had a “scheduling conflict,” or if she had lied about it to avoid her constituents. The result speaks for itself:
View on YouTube
The video clearly shows Burdick was home at the time she claimed she couldn’t make it to her own townhall due to a “scheduling conflict.” So naturally, the questions becomes, “conflict with what?” Her favorite show? Hasn’t she ever heard of DVR?
After seeing the video, blogger Jeff Reynolds contacted the Senator’s office to ask what the scheduling conflict had been, and was given the run-around. His blog post quickly got people talking about why Burdick had lied to her constituents and hidden out at home instead of meeting with them.
Realizing she had been caught lying, Burdick immediately fell back on an old Alinsky tactic of playing the victim, and the Zero was all too happy to try and spin the narrative that citizen journalists who try to hold their elected officials accountable are “mentally unstable or threatening“:
“It was clearly an attempt to intimidate me,” Burdick said Tuesday morning. “It’s a sad time when people feel they can intimidate people like that.”
[...] ”I think it’s a concern because these people are very angry and they’re carrying guns,” Burdick said. “It’s not a good combination.”
The clip showed the need for “reasonable gun laws so people who are mentally unstable or threatening” do not have access to guns, she said.
But in playing the victim card, Burdick inadvertently admitted that she HAD lied to her constituents about a “scheduling conflict,” and her real reason for canceling had been to avoid gun rights supporters:
Burdick said she canceled her town hall because she feared gun owners would storm the event and be rude and disruptive. That has happened before, she said, and she wanted to ensure it didn’t occur at the PSU town hall.
Got that? If you care about your 2nd Amendment rights and have the audacity to challenge your elected officials or catch them lying, the ruling class will try to smear you as unstable, threatening, rude and disruptive.
When her first excuse was questioned, Burdick changed her story again, claiming that she had canceled the event because of some threatening e-mails she’d received.
So which is it, Ginny? Scheduling conflict? Unwillingness to meet with your pro-gun rights constituents? Or fear for your life?
Why does your story keep changing? Why should anyone believe you now, when you’ve been caught on tape lying to your constituents?
And why does it take a citizen journalist to expose the facts? Is the media asleep at the wheel, or just in your back pocket?
Bonus: Republicans at PSU didn’t let the cancellation go to waste, organizing a pro-gun event in it’s place:
Meanwhile, back at Portland State University, where Burdick was originally scheduled to speak, the campus College Republicans student group was able to book the room on short notice and bring in Oregon Firearms Federation‘s Kevin Starrett, effectively turning what would have been a gun control town hall into a pro gun presentation.
“We are Americans. The politicians are only as powerful as We The People allow them to be.”
View on YouTube
The NRA comes out with both guns blazing…so to speak. ;)
The Oregon Firearms Federation is raising the alarm on dangerous new anti-gun legislation that has just been introduced in the Oregon House:
Two days after Senate Democrats claimed they would not seek a ban on modern firearms and feeding devices, Democrats in the Oregon House introduced just that.
Seven Senators joined with eight House Reps to introduce a sweeping ban on virtually all modern firearms. [...]
HB 3200 not only bans most modern guns and magazines, it allows warrantless searches of your home, requires background checks and registration for a firearm you already own and as-of-yet undefined storage requirements. We say “a firearm” because even if you comply with the restrictions in this bill you may still only own one.
(Of course the bill does not apply to “government employees”.)
The bill combines the most extreme and irrational elements of other bills that have been introduced across the country. For example, one of the firearms banned under this bill would be a pistol with a “folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock.” No, that is not a misprint.
[...] The bill bans such deadly features as “pistol grips” and “barrel shrouds” because clearly they add to the lethality of any firearm. These people are so full of hatred for gun owners they don’t even understand what they are banning.
Here is the full text of the legislation.
Here are the lawmakers responsible:
This is a blatant frontal attack on 2nd Amendment rights. Call these lawmakers, e-mail them, and leave your comments on their Facebook pages to let them know how you feel about House Bill 3200!
Earth to Holder: the 2nd Amendment right to armed self-defense comes from GOD, NOT from the Executive Branch or any other government office. The Constitution acknowledges and preserves this right, and no president has the power to pick and choose who can exercise it.
Attorney General Eric Holder discussed gun violence at Clark Atlanta University in Georgia on Thursday and called last week’s shootings at Price Middle School and Morehouse College both shocking and outrageous and said that they were reminders a pervasive epidemic of gun violence. While Holder attempted to say the administration was attempting to strike a balance between advocating for tougher gun regulations while preserving the gun rights of citizens, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, he went on to state quite clearly that Barack Obama has asked him to “expand” the criteria of the “wrong people” getting their hands on guns.
[...] Holder went on to take questions from the audience and this is where his comments pointed to the Obama administration determining exactly who the expansion of the categories that would deny Second Amendment rights to entered the discussion.
Holder didn’t say who this might apply to specifically. He did, however, state, “A person who has a gun should be a person who is entitled to have one.”
Holder went on to say, “We have Second Amendment rights and there is nothing in what the President is trying to do that will affect those Second Amendment rights, but there’s certain people; people who have mental health issues perhaps… people who have felony records. These are all categories of people who are not entitled to carry a gun and I think that we have to make sure that that continues to be the case.”
Never mind that Holder’s own DOJ and ATF put nearly 2,500 firearms in the hands of criminal drug cartels in Mexico.
“One of the things the President has asked me to do is to look at that list, to look at those categories and see if we need to expand it to make sure that, again, the wrong people do not come into possession of guns,” Holder added.
Friends, the argument over violent felons is valid only if the law will not mete out just punishment. There was no argument over whether a person’s rights were being violated when someone was found guilty of murder, rape, kidnapping or various other crimes that warranted the death penalty. Now we don’t want to execute people for such crimes, so they “pay their debt to society,” which is not even close to justice, and then we let them back on the streets, but remove their Second Amendment rights; rights that are claimed to be unalienable and given by God. Personally, I’d rather see justice served and not argue about who is and is not entitled to what we have been told are God given rights that the government cannot take away.
Additionally, those who were determined to be mentally ill, not by the Federal government though, were relagated to institutions, but we don’t do that now because we don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings.
However, what should concern every American is just who this “expansion” of categories of those that the Obama administration deems to not be “entitled” to arms applies to. Will it be those with a particular political persuasion? ideology? theology? What will determine this and how will they attempt to enforce it?
Personally, it seems clear that any and all attempts by those in Washington at what is commonly referred to as “gun control” are nothing more than Federal infringements upon the Second Amendment and thus unlawful and unconstitutional.
Just try it and see what happens…
In a white paper dated January 4 and obtained by NRA-ILA, the deputy director of the National Institute for Justice–DOJ’s research and evaluation agency–said that the proposals before Congress are unlikely to have an effect unless they are made even more draconian. For instance, the document makes clear that the effectiveness of “universal” background checks “depends on … requiring gun registration.” On the topic of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, NIJ writes, “In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession.” As for popular semi-automatic firearms, the NIJ notes, “Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.”
Move over Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, there’s a new “war on women,” courtesy of the party that loves to claim it represents women. Colorado Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar made these shocking statements on the state house floor:
Here’s the direct quote:
“There are some gender inequities on college campuses… that’s why we have call boxes. That’s why we have safe zones. That’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, then you pop out that gun and you pop, pop around at somebody.”
Yes, you heard that right. Potential rape victims shouldn’t be armed because they might just start randomly shooting people based on a hunch.
The University of Colorado, Colorado Springs offers these “safety” tips for defenseless women:
Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.
Apparently, if these tactics don’t work on a 200-lb misogynist rapist whose motivation is power, control, and hating women, the problem is that you’ve made yourself too “attractive” a target.
Sadly, this is par for the course of liberal logic. At a recent D.C. rally against “violence against women,” protesters were asked whether or not carrying a concealed weapon was a good way for women to defend themselves against violence:
View on YouTube
It’s very revealing that not one would support women defending themselves with lethal force. Liberals have a long history of preferring to protect criminals over their victims. Just goes to show how much they REALLY care about the REAL “war on women”!