Paul Ryan (R-WI) to Cut Gun Control Deal, Major Vote Next Week

From Ammoland.com

Wisconsin – -(Ammoland.com)- While you and I prepare for a weekend of R&R in celebration of this nation’s freedom, Wisconsin Republicrat Paul Ryan is working behind the scenes to crush what little freedom you and I have left.

That’s right, Ryan — according to a story on AmmoLand News and again on rollcall.com yesterday, “House Plans Vote on Guns Next Week” — will urge the U.S. House early next week to vote for “a counterterrorism package that will include a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns” and a so-called mental health bill that will effectively disarm and prohibit gun ownership for millions of Americans without due process based on phony junk science and the “diagnoses” from any anti-gun doctor with an axe to grind.

Of course, these politicians — people who have made a career out of habitual lies and broken promises — are trying to reassure gun owners that they will build in an appeals process for anyone wrongly placed on the government’s East-German Stasi-style secret watchlists.

Yeah, right.

As our friends at Gun Owners of America points out here, even IF there is an appeals process for being wrongly placed on a watchlist (as millions of Americans are) no one will be able to afford the attorneys’ fees to fight that legal battle.

Sadly, the institutional gun lobby is offering a so-called “compromise” which will arguably be just as bad as the anti-gunners’ bill … all in an attempt to try to look ‘reasonable.’

You and I know that’s a very, very bad strategy: like trying to feed scraps of meat to the crocodile that’s about to eat you.

Anti-gun bills being introduced include:

  • Obama’s “No-Fly, No Guns” program, labeling you a “terrorist” because some bureaucrat doesn’t like your political views.
  • Implement mental health gun ban, so any hand-picked “doctor” can declare you mentally unfit to own firearms … with no due process or right to appeal.

Again, this attack on our firearm freedom will be launched right after politicians return from the July 4th 2016 recess — so after getting rested up during a weekend of phony homage to freedom, they will turn right around next week and attack your freedom.

Call Paul Ryan’s Office and tell him what you think of this!

 

2nd Amendment Rally At The Capitol This Saturday January 19th

Guns Across America Rallies are being held at State Capitols throughout the United States this Saturday January 19th.  Join fellow patriots at noon in support of your right to keep and bear arms and rally against any new gun control legislation.

Gun Control = More Crime

 

Choose Your Crime Stats

The Shotgun – A True Story of Gun Control

The Shotgun – A True Story of Gun Control

by TheLasersShadow

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.  At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.  One holds something that looks like a crowbar.  When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.  The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.  One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.  In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.  Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.  They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.  “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.  Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.  Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.  But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”  The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.  The national media picks it up, then the international media.  The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.  Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.  The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.  The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.  Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.  It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.  The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened!!!

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.  How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.  This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.  Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.  When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.  Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.  Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.  Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.  The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

“…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,

tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..”

–Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

Gun Laws that are being proposed in America will eventually cause the same effect here!

Commentary On The Conneticut Mass Shooting

Below is a video with some thoughts from “Nutnfancy” that echos much of what we think.  Nutnfacy is a retired Lt. Col. in the US Air Force pilot and has channel on YouTube where he gives independent reviews on different guns and gear.

We very much believe that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has it right by calling up his posse to patrol schools.  There is no need to enlarge government to do a job that trained civilians/parents can do.  Possibly in a later post, I will give more details on why this is a good idea.

From The 10th Amendment Center – “Aborting Guns?”

Below is a very good article on State vs. Federal power.  This applies to so many issues that are happening today and speaks to why we have an out-of-control federal government.  This is also due, in part, to the national media.  There is a vested interest by the national news media in having a strong central government.  Not only does this increase the “importance” of their coverage, but also allows for easier coverage.  Most of the media focus only needs to be spent in one place, Washington D.C, instead of the coverage being spread throughout the 50 State Capitals of our nation.

The Framers set up our constitutional republic as a system having the power “decentralized”.  Many of the most contentious issues like abortion, I believe, will never be solved on a national level.  To truly solve these issues the States need to re-assert their sovereignty.

Pro-Life advocates, for example, have a much better chance to stop abortion on a State level.  As the article points out, if a person doesn’t like how their respective State is handling this issue, they can work to change it and/or “vote with their feet” to another State with whose laws they agree with.

Aborting Guns?

by John Lambert

Recently, the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act of 2011 passed overwhelming in the House of Representatives.  One thing that stood out, there were some on the left that cited the 10th Amendment as justification for it being Unconstitutional.

As much as I’m an avid gun-rights advocate, I have to admit that this criticism is valid.

Currently, forty states have some form of concealed permit reciprocity, so is the power for the Federal Government really necessary for the final ten states?

The question becomes, does the expansion of liberty by this law outweigh the growth of power in the Federal Government?  The problem is…  yes, they can pass this bill which on some level I like, but what is stopping the Federal Government using this tactic on something I don’t like?

A Different Take on Abortion-Part 1

I know abortion is a touchy issue with a lot of people.  I just ask you give me some latitude here to make my point, and I will make you a promise.  I will not endorse one side or another or even state my position on abortion.  Since it is such a divisive issue, it allows me to make a particular points.

If we are honest with ourselves, the heart of this issue comes down if you believe or not that the unborn child has natural rights or not.  Obviously, the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life crowds have different views whether life begins at conception or birth.

Personally, I can make compelling arguments for both points of view.  A Pro-Choice individual will naturally argue that a woman has the right to her own body.  Her body is her property and the state can’t claim it.  She can choose what to eat, drink, or even who shares her bed.  This isn’t the function of the state.

A Pro-Life individual will state the unborn child has rights and should be defended.  If a man beats his wife who is pregnant and she loses the child as the result, he should be punished for the loss of the child, right?  If so, we are saying as a society that the unborn child has rights on some level.  So how can an individual have partial rights?

If we are honest, we really can’t refute either argument.  We can intellectually disagree but all we can do is form some conclusion that seems morally right to us.  I do know one thing about the abortion issue.  No matter which side I come down on, there are a significant number of people in this country who will disagree with me.

When this topic comes in conversations, I will state my view, but I will also make a case that I do understand the arguments from the other side.  One time, a Pro-Choice friend of mine made the case that she felt the Fourteenth Amendment justified her position.  However, I pointed out to her that to a Pro-Life individual would argue that the Fourteenth Amendment would also apply to the unborn child and they are defending those same rights.  She never really considered this point of view.

I don’t demonize those who disagree with me on this issue.  My goal when the topic comes up is to share my understanding on this issue in hopes they don’t demonize individuals as well.

Since this is such a divisive issue, I believe I don’t have the authority to force my view on those who disagree with me through the power of Washington DC.

A Different Take on Abortion- Part 2

Let us pretend there are three islands close together.  The first island is settled by Catholics who want to practice their faith in peace.  There are about the same number or settlers living on the second island, but they are atheists.   Both of these islands are roughly the same size and have similar resources.

The last island is larger and is occupied by head hunting cannibals.  (I know this sounds like a Gilligan’s Island plotline, but just bear with me.)  This island has superior resources they often attack the smaller islands.

Representatives of the first two islands discuss working together to fight off the cannibals.  They form a council to discuss their issues with the cannibals. They agreed that they will trade among themselves and defend each other, but will stay out of each other’s internal affairs.

The Catholic island because of their faith have abortion illegal.  The atheists could care less about the issue and thus not illegal.

Do the atheists have the right to force the Catholics to allow abortions?  Do the Catholics have the right to force the atheists to ban abortions?  Isn’t this determination up to the people who live on these islands?

However, what if one of the following happens: a Catholic comes to the conclusion that abortions shouldn’t be banned?  Or one of the atheists starts thinking that abortions are morally wrong?

Each of these individuals have the natural rights to do one of the following:

1) They can just accept their circumstance and do nothing.

2) They can use their natural right of Free Speech and try to persuade those around them to their point of view.

3) They have natural right of traveling to the other community who shares their viewpoint.

Federal versus National

This concept is what our Founders had in mind with the creation of a Federal and not a National system.  The states are themselves sovereign and should control most of their internal issues.

The “conventional wisdom” has been that the Federal Government needs to maintain a check on States who may abuse their power.  Again who will maintain a check on the Federal Government?  The Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court went from 1937 to 1995 without ruling a Congressional Act as Unconstitutional.  Really????   You mean that every law during this time frame was totally Constitutional?  I sincerely doubt it.

There is no debate that States themselves will abuse power.  Well, they are government institutions after all.  However, there is a check on the states.  If a state becomes too oppressive, people and companies will leave the state and move to another one.  The State will then lose tax revenue and the quality of life will decline in the state.

Or if a State creates a bold plan for its citizens something like a state run healthcare system.  If successful, other states will study and copy the program.  If it fails, the impact is only felt by said state.

However if the Federal Government passes a bold program, the failure of the program affects everyone.  A citizen can’t avoid it by just moving to another State.

We have acknowledge the importance of competition in the marketplace for our dollars.  There are several shops or manufactures will sell you a hammer if you need one.  Why not force the states in the position to compete for your citizenship and tax dollars?

This is the check on the States and demonstrates why a lot of what Federal Government does isn’t necessary.  There is also the problem of the Federal Government abusing the states doing things that they believe are right.

Like the Republicans who supported the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act.

John Lambert [send him email] is the Outreach Coordinator for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center.

Constitutional Carry – Priceless