“If you establish that the Earth is warming, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we have a moral duty to reduce emissions. What should follow is an informed debate about the costs and benefits of various policies to address that warming—reducing emissions is just one possible answer. Another debate should focus on those policies’ economic costs. Al Gore doesn’t want to have those debates, because the majority of evidence suggests that emissions reduction will be very costly and will have little effect… Meanwhile, 2 billion people around the world go without electricity. About 3 million die each year because of fumes given off by primitive stoves. The U.S. economy sneezes when gasoline hits $3 a gallon. If we have a moral duty, it’s to keep energy affordable here and to expand access to it overseas. That’s the real moral truth, however inconvenient for Al Gore.” —Iain Murray
Archive for March, 2007
“Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results. Compassion for murderers allows them to keep their lives after taking the life of another. Compassion for minorities leads to affirmative action, which means that individuals who are not members of a designated minority will be treated unfairly. Compassion for immigrant children led to bilingual education, which subsequently prevented most of those children from advancing in American society. Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves.” —Dennis Prager
“Science is the search for truth—it is not a game in which one tries to beat his opponent, to do harm to others. We need to have the spirit of science in international affairs, to make the conduct of international affairs the effort to find the right solution, the just solution of international problems, not the effort by each nation to get the better of other nations, to do harm to them when it is possible.” —Linus Pauling
“Everyone knows Hillary Rodham Clinton, and everyone has a different reaction to her. Some find her as irritating as fingernails on a chalkboard. Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track. The conventional wisdom is that the former first lady will be a formidable presidential candidate because she has lots of money, veteran campaign aides, a shrewd political sense and a close connection to a president beloved by Democrats. But those may be nothing next to a couple of fairly major factors operating against her. The first is that many people in both parties see her as ideologically repellent. Conservatives think she’s an arrogant busybody with an addiction to big government. The Left regards her as a cynical trimmer who can’t admit when she’s wrong. The second is that many people, again in both parties, just can’t stand her. You want a uniter, not a divider? Hillary has a way of uniting people who ordinarily would be pelting each other with eggs. That explains the appeal of the new YouTube ad, modeled on Apple’s famous ‘1984’ Super Bowl commercial, which portrays her as a blandly sinister Big Sister on a giant screen, uttering phony platitudes to an army of robotic slaves. It ends happily when a blonde female athlete sprints in and hurls a sledgehammer at the screen, obliterating the image… As the campaign proceeds, some people will be hoping for her to succeed. But I’m betting a lot more will be rooting for the blonde with the sledgehammer.” —Steve Chapman
Via the Patriot Post PatriotPost.US |
The Democrats are back in power and their anti-gun wing is trying to
make up for lost time as far as gun control legislation is concerned.
There are a number of bills that have been introduced already, but
GOA will be there to meet every challenge.
Right now, we need your help in beating back a reintroduction of the
so-called “assault weapons ban,” the infamous bill that outlawed many
types of firearms based primarily on cosmetics, misinformation and
The bill is HR 1022, and last month it was introduced by the Queen of
Gun Control, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Its 30 cosponsors
comprise a list of the usual anti-gun suspects — so we need to make
sure that no pro-gun congressmen are duped into signing their names
onto this anti-gun piece of trash.
McCarthy entitled her bill the Assault Weapons Ban and Law
Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, knowing these firearms aren’t
“assault weapons” and knowing the bill she is reintroducing does
nothing to prevent violent crime — since the guns in question have
seldom been used in crime.
McCarthy’s bill would reinstate all of the now defunct provisions
related to semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines. The
manufacture and/or importation of many firearms would be prohibited.
This would be paired with a strong ban on the possession or transfer
of detachable magazines having moderate or larger capacities.
Truth be told, HR 1022 is the old ban on steroids. Fourteen more
guns are listed by name than in the ’94 ban, and only one “dangerous”
feature, such as a pistol grip, is needed to make a “nice” gun into a
“bad” gun. The old ban required two “dangerous” features, such as a
pistol grip and a folding stock. This distinction effectively
expands the scope of the bill to ban a far broader variety of
Since the U.S. Department of Justice has already documented that the
previous “assault weapons” ban did absolutely nothing to stop violent
crime, it is clear that HR 1022 is simply a direct attack on the 2nd
Amendment rights of gun owners.
More than 10 years ago, the anti-gun lobby and their friends in the
media began waging a campaign to frighten people and convince them
that the so-called “assault weapons” are rapid fire machine guns
when, in reality, they are merely semi-automatic firearms that look
different than traditional hunting rifles.
This bill is designed to cripple the firearms industry while
infringing on the rights of all gun owners. It is proof positive
that the rabid, anti-gun members of Congress really don’t care about
stopping crime or saving lives — they just want to take our guns
What are the odds of this bill getting through the Congress? Who
knows? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just gave Rep. Jefferson a seat on
the Homeland Security Panel. Jefferson was the guy who had $90,000
dollars of bribe money stuffed into his freezer.
If the liberals now in control of the Democrat Party feel they are
strong enough to get away with that kind of outrage, they may feel
they can get away with passing a gun ban that does nothing but punish
law-abiding gun owners.
We must take seriously every anti-gun bill introduced in this
Congress. But, at the same time, this bill is an opportunity to beat
up those members of Congress who hate guns and will stop at nothing
to eliminate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
If we can give them a good thrashing on HR 1022, we may be able to
discourage them from bringing forth more bills like this. And that
is why we need your help in beating down HR 1022 quickly, and making
sure that none of the good guys get suckered into supporting this.
ACTION: Please use the pre-written letter below to direct your
comments to your Congressman. And circulate this alert to your
pro-gun friends and family.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative
toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
|New Jersey Trial Court Recognizes Second Amendment Right|
|Friday, March 23, 2007|
|The U.S. Court of Appeals decision striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban isn’t the only recent court ruling to recognize Second Amendment rights. In a recent New Jersey case, a judge also found that the amendment protected the rights of a would-be gun buyer.
In this case, the local police denied the plaintiff a “firearm purchaser identification card” required by state law. The police argued he wasn’t eligible for the card, because he’d once owned guns that had been seized and not returned as a result of a domestic incident. The plaintiff pointed out that he had agreed not to have the guns returned, and that the law blocking new purchases based on past seizures wasn’t passed until three years after the incident.
In its February 27 decision, the Warren County Superior Court found that the police had violated the idea of “fundamental fairness.” Because the law didn’t exist at the time of the incident, the plaintiff couldn’t have intended to give up “his right to bear arms as provided by the [Second Amendment].” As in the D.C. case, the story is far from over, because the state plans to appeal.
Assault on Right-to-Carry Permits Heading to Colorado House Floor! Senate Bill 34, sponsored by State Senator John Morse (D-11), passed the House Judiciary Committee today and is on its way to the House floor for a vote. SB34, if enacted, non-resident carry permits will no longer be honored if the address on the holder’s identification is different than the state where the permit was issued. Please contact your State Representative TODAY at (303) 866-2904, or if outside of Denver, at (800) 811-7647 and respectfully urge him or her to oppose SB34.
Gun Tax Advancing in Colorado Senate! Senate Bill 109, sponsored by State Senator Ron Tupa (D-18), seeks to increase the fee assessed for the instant criminal background check conducted by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation prior to the transfer of a firearm. SB109 passed the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please contact your State Senator today at (303) 866-2316 and respectfully urge him or her to oppose this legislation.
Colorado Anti-Gun Legislation One Step Closer to Passage! House Bill 1174, sponsored by State Representative Al White (R-57), is scheduled to be heard in the State Senate in the coming days. House Bill 1174 would repeal the sunset review of the law enforcement database of carry permit holders. Please contact your State Senator today at (303) 866-2316 and respectfully urge him or her to oppose this legislation.
MONTVILLE, Conn. (AP) — Billy Walkabout, a native Cherokee whose actions in Vietnam made him among most decorated soldiers of the war, died March 7 in Connecticut.
He was 57.
Walkabout received the Distinguished Service Cross, Purple Heart, five Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars. He was believed to be the most decorated Native American soldier of the Vietnam War, according to U.S. Department of Defense reports.
Walkabout was born in Cherokee County, Okla., on March 31, 1949, and lived much of his life in Oklahoma.
At the time of his death, Walkabout and his wife, Juanita Medbury-Walkabout, lived in a portion of eastern Connecticut that is home to many Mashantucket Pequot, Mohegan and other Native American tribal members.
ITASKA, IL—A newly released report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearms-related fatalities remain at record lows, and that firearms-related accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly.The report says these downward trends are occurring even as firearms ownership continues to rise in the United States. Statistics in the NSC’s 2007 “Injury Facts” report show a 40 percent decrease in accidental firearms-related fatalities during a 10-year period ending in 2005. The report also shows firearms-related accidents involving children ages 14 and under declined 69 percent between 1995 and 2003. Downward trends also are being reported by other sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For more information, visit www.nsc.org.
So much for the raving antics of Barrister Silverman (http://www.khow.com/pages/shows-caplis_silverman.html) that appears to be proud of the apparent fact that he would be happy that my mother would have been killed by a knife wielding rapist. My own life would have been sacrificed as well. Me? I thank GOD for Ruger 357 Magnums, Super Vell Ammunition, and the MARINES that taught me how to shoot. Period.
Listen folks; As noted elsewhere on this blog terrorists are among us. They could care less about any laws that we propose, much less enact. They intend to kill you, yes you. As well as your families…
So? What are our so-called leaders proposing? Why, to dis- arm us of course! (as noted also elsewhere on this blog). I submit that the answer to this dilemma, is FREEDOM! LIBERTY! JUSTICE! No more, and certainly no less.
With Freedom comes responsibility. With Liberty comes Accountability. With Justice comes Honor. I submit that Justice is not the realm of Lawyers, but the realm of the common person.
Look folks, we are very close to revolution fever here.
Why? In my opinion, because we, as a people, have decided that the Constitution is some outdated thought process of Old Dead White men. I would postulate that what we, as a people need to do; Is remember the works, deeds, and thoughts that those old white men displayed in the writings that led to the founding of this nation!
A Valentine’s Day Massacre (of the Constitution)
In some ways I’m surprised it took them this long. On Valentine’s Day, 14 February, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) began a campaign to grab just about everything but Cupid’s arrows with the introduction of her bill, HR 1022, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.” This is the same Carolyn McCarthy who introduced HR 297 on the first day of the new Congress, attempting the most massive expansion of the Brady Law since its 1993 passage. McCarthy’s murky definition of “assault weapons” notwithstanding, the legislation’s intent is to re-enact the 1994 Clinton gun grab, while adding a few million more firearms to the haul.
All this leads me to wonder whether the anti-gun crowd simply skips over that pesky constitutional amendment stuck right there between the First and the Third.
Under the Clinton Gun Ban, which expired in 2004 under the Republican-controlled Congress, 19 so-called “assault weapons” —in reality semi-automatic hunting and sporting rifles—were banned for having characteristics that liberals found scary: certain stocks, grips, magazines and so forth. Under that 1994 law, manufacturers could still sell these weapons if they made them look less scary to liberals; HR 1022, however, would ban them entirely.
In addition to eliminating completely the weapons covered under the Clinton law, McCarthy’s bill adds more than a few firearms to the list, including the following:
All semi-automatic shotguns; all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles; the most popular competition sporting rifles—including the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and even today’s version of the American infantryman’s rifle of World War II, the M1 Garand; any shotgun or semi-automatic rifle having “any characteristic that can function as a grip”; any automatic fixed-magazine pistol exceeding a ten-round capacity; and any parts needed to repair or refurbish guns in circulation that are covered under the ban.
In addition, the legislation would give the Attorney General the prerogative to add any other shotgun or rifle to the list that the government ever deems not to be a “sporting” weapon. Not content with simply banning these weapons, HR 1022 also takes steps toward national firearm registration by mandating new rules for weapons and parts sales. Finally, as if all this weren’t enough, McCarthy’s bill would be a permanent ban, unlike the Clinton Ban, which expired after a ten-year trial period.
Legislation of this sort is becoming an obsession with Democrats. When the Clinton Ban was set to expire on 13 September 2004, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to extend and expand it. At the time, President Bush took the calculated move to commit to signing the bill if it made it through Congress—since he knew it wouldn’t. Now, with Democrats in control of both Houses, anxiously aided by anti-gun Republicans aplenty, what will the President do if HR 1022 makes it to his desk? The Patriot said at the time that the Bush administration’s 2004 strategy was arrogance and folly—and now that folly may be coming home to roost.
Perhaps this administration should focus more on the long-term effects of its action on the Constitution and less on the short-term gains to be had from “playing to the crowd.” It is the Constitution, after all—and not men—that defines the rule of law.
The Constitution’s Second Amendment prohibition against government interference in the “right to keep and bear arms” is the singular right that ensures all others. As noted by Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison: “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.”
Indeed, Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46, “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any.” This is no less true today than it was in 1787.
When Feinstein-Schumer was coming around the bend in 2004, much hay was made of the Bureau of Justice Statistics data that firearms-related crime had declined 54 percent in the last decade (that is, the period covered by the Clinton Gun Ban). The number of violent crimes reported in 2002 was 980,000 fewer than in 2000, but a National Institute of Justice report (headed by Christopher Koper at the University of Pennsylvania) concluded, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”
Feinstein’s own California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady noted in an internal memo, “Information on [these guns] would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the [Feinstein-Schumer] legislation would be based,” and even the Washington Post admitted that the banned guns “play[ed] a part in only a small percentage of crime.”
Like HR 1022 today, Feinstein-Schumer claimed to be aimed at the protection of law-abiding citizens from the “gun problem.” Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with such restrictions—and at their own peril. Criminals don’t care whether the weapon they’re using comports with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books, but they do care whether their intended victim has a firearm. Indeed, extensive interviews with violent felons make it clear that they’d much rather prey on those who are least likely to possess a gun for self-defense.
In Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Again, no less true today than it has been throughout history.
Clearly, our Founding Fathers had it right. “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” warned George Mason. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty,” implored Patrick Henry. “Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”