Updates on the new proposed gun laws.  Here we go, ladies and gents, get ready for the all out assalt on our rights.
 
2. HR 45 -- Gun Rights Licensing Test
Illinois congressman Bobby Rush, from Obama's home state and with a voting record on gun ownership as bad as Obama's, introduced a bill on the first day of the 111th Congress that shows what we can expect. If we don't defeat this bill, and others expected to follow it, gun owners will lose guns and the industry will suffer harm beyond description.
Under HR 45, if you can't pass a complex test written by the U.S. Attorney General (described in detail below), pay the tax, give up fingerprints and a biometric-capable photo of yourself (that can be turned into a digital facial-recognition number and used as a de facto national ID), every gun you own will become contraband and subject to confiscation, while you stand trial before imprisonment. You'd think Bobby, a former black panther, would know better.
Your rights will have an expiration date, and if you screw up and miss it, you'll be in the same mess as people who can't pass the test. Can you say "unconstitutional"? Do you think these "gun bigots" care?
Now that the Supreme Court has made it clear in the Heller case that government can't ban guns, the Brady's have stopped saying they want to ban guns. So the virtually treasonous Bobby Rush bill doesn't ban guns, it bans gun owners, maybe by the millions. How many gun owners read poorly or don't test well? How many can't explain local, state and federal gun laws? They'd become prohibited possessors under HR 45. Are there any limits to what the AG can put on the test? The bill doesn't mention any -- it gives the AG a free hand to include anything.
Had enough? HR 45 has an innocent-looking line that says 'strike the second sentence of 18 USC 926(a)'. That's the line that says the federal government cannot make a central registry of gun owners.
The anti-rights people have to repeal that line, because Bobby's bill flat-out creates a central gun registry. Every gun owner must be registered to keep on possessing the guns they already own, and any transfer of any kind must be registered as well. The mark of the beast is upon us, to apply a metaphor.
See the bill for yourself (click "Bill Number" and enter "HR 45"):
http://thomas.loc.gov
 
Read the gun-ban list the antis have already published:
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate3.htm
 
HR 45
The bill starts with a statement of purpose that says: " because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce." Basically, this eliminates the Tenth Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Constitution can't legally be amended by statute. Is that enough to seek Mr. Rush's removal from office? I won't bore you with the other "purposes" which are as bad or worse.
Only "qualifying firearms" are affected. That means any handgun, or any semi-auto firearm that has a removable magazine (what they call a " detachable ammunition feeding device").
After the bill becomes law (IF it becomes law), it's illegal for you to have or get those firearms, even if you already own them, without a special federal license. There are grace periods up to two years to register yourself once the law is passed.
Do you see how clever this is? You cold-dead-fingers guys can keep your guns if you like, refuse to register yourselves, and then you're subject to arrest on the spot. If you go anywhere with your guns -- to the range, a store, a gunsmith, a friend's house, hunting, competition -- and you're spotted, you go straight to jail. If you're already on a list (can anyone say "carry permit" or "hunting license"?) and you don't sign up, well, just connect those dots. Where does the cold-dead-fingers part come into play? I'll bet the ranges will start requiring you to show your papers before you can hit the line.
To get the license you must "submit to the Attorney General" (they chose that phrase right by golly): a passport-type photo, identifying info, any name you have ever used or ever been known by (I have nicknames, pen names, stage names, omitting any presumably violates the statute) a thumbprint, certification that any firearms will be "safely" stored and out of possession of people under 18, authorization to give up any mental health records, and a certificate that you passed a government-run test.
The test must include knowledge of: safe storage, safe handling, use of firearms at home, the risks of firearms at home, local state and federal legal requirements for firearms, reporting requirements for firearms, and ANY other subjects the AG decides are appropriate. You date and sign the submission, making it perjury if your info is inaccurate.
I'm skipping some details on who can accept the form, time periods for filing it and similar red tape on this 4,600 word bill. The AG "shall" issue the license if you pass the test and do everything else, and also "shall" charge you a tax for the privilege of getting your rights licensed, up to $25 at present. This gets you a tamper-resistant photo ID card with your official number, address, date of birth, signature and the expiration date of your "rights" (about five years, it's complicated). There's a renewal procedure (it's complicated) and no apparent limit on the renewal tax you will be charged (the AG gets power to control the details).
The license can be revoked for cause of course, and the AG "shall" make sure you give it up if it's revoked.
Once this thing is in place, it's illegal to transfer or receive any affected firearm (all handguns and any semi-auto with a magazine) without the license. Transfers can only be made to or from a licensed dealer, who has to jump through hoops and file papers, and has 14 days to get that done (a waiting period on the dealer's shoulders), to get government approvals and authorization numbers.
The dealer must send the feds the gun name and/or model number, maker, serial number, your license number, name, address and transfer date, which the feds must store in a "Federal Record of Sale System," a permanent national gun registry.
This needs to be said verbatim: "(c) Elimination of Prohibition on Establishment of System of Registration -- Section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence." That sentence says the feds can't register the firearms Americans own:
"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [1986] may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established." The Bobby Rush bill says kiss that sentence and its extremely crucial protections goodbye.
 
Now remember, President Obama said he supported the 2nd Amendment?????? 

Anti-Gun-Rights Candidate Could Gut "Heller" Decision




Now that Barack Obama has received the endorsement of the Brady Campaign
gun-control group, will the Supreme Court's findings in the D.C. gun-ban
"Heller" case matter?

That's the question experts are asking in the wake of Obama's 11th-hour
support from America's leading gun-ban advocates. The late-date endorsement
was conspicuously absent from most large news outlets. Those groups have
repeatedly claimed that anti-gun-rights agendas were a key issue in the
Democrat election defeats of 2000 and 2004.

"Obama publicly supported Washington D.C.'s total gun ban until the
Supreme Court's 'Heller' case voided it," says Alan Korwin, co-author of
"The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed," which was just released (see below
for news-media review copies). "His opposition to gun rights is well known
and carefully documented in the new book," he said. Obama swiftly reversed
his position after the High Court found that gun rights belong to
individuals, a point also documented in the new book.

"Before the ban was overturned, Mr. Obama supported the position of the
Court's dissenters -- that gun bans are fine and the Second Amendment in
the Bill of Rights does not protect people, it protects 'collective rights'
of states," Korwin notes. That position had little to support it in the
historical record, but was favored by people seeking to ban firearms from
public hands. The "collective rights" theory, a recent creation, was
dismissed with ridicule by the Court (equating it to Alice in Wonderland).
The Amendment itself speaks of "the security of a free state," and "the
right of the people."

As the first book released about the landmark gun-rights decision, "The
Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed" describes the events leading up to the
case, and precisely what the Court said, word-for-word and in plain
English. If Obama follows the Court's decree, the civil rights of the
general public should be fairly well safeguarded with respect to owning and
using firearms.

If he instead follows the lead of his endorsers in the Brady Campaign, gun
rights as America has known them for more than two centuries could easily
end. His campaign positions so far suggest the latter, if he is elected.
His widely available voting record is 100% consistent -- voting for every
restriction on law-abiding gun use, and against every proposed protection
for innocent individuals.

Virtually all recent gun-law proposals fall into those two categories --
bans on honest ownership and rights, or support for honest ownership and
rights. New laws targeting criminals are rare, since every imaginable
criminal activity with guns is already against the law and carries severe
penalties.

The only thing left, according to leading experts, is to ban guns for
non-criminals, a policy choice adopted in some circles. Gun bans on
criminals have had embarrassingly little effect on street gangs, the drug
war and career criminals in general. Facing abject failure of crime-related
social policies, and unable to disarm criminals, many politicians are
turning instead to civil-disarmament schemes. Working against this trend,
"Disarm Criminals First" says one campaign slogan in the Marksmanship
Movement.

The three publicly announced elements of the Brady-Obama anti-gun
positions include 1- Ban the freedom to sell firearms from one innocent
person to another, euphemistically called the "gun-show loophole"; 2- Allow
all law enforcement officers to fish through gun-dealer records looking for
paperwork or other violations, and compile data as they see fit,
euphemistically known as "repealing the Tiahart Amendment" (which prevents
them from doing so currently); and 3- permanently ban an enormous list of
perfectly legal firearms and accessories based on looks, names and
operating characteristics, euphemistically called an "assault-weapons
ban."

First, knowledgeable observers know assault is a type of behavior, not a
type of hardware, plus the ban seeks to outlaw all semiautomatic firearms.
Second, it's already completely illegal for criminals to buy firearms under
any circumstances, so the proposed private-sale ban would only affect
innocent citizens. And third, the Tiahart Amendment protects the innocent
from government registries and abuse, so all three proposals, as noted
above, have virtually no effect ..ping crime, but do crush freedoms
Americans currently enjoy.

A long wish list of other gun-freedom repeals have been previously
announced by Brady, Obama and their supporters, but have not shown up in
the candidate's platform yet. See some of them here:




http://www.gunlaws.com/Left-wing%20Gun%20Plan.htm

including (as listed during the Clinton administration):

THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:

1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.

2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.

3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.

4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).

5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).

6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more
than 200,000).

7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.

8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot
inspections).

9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than
200,000.

10. Banning all military style firearms.

11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine
gun.

12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in
transit from one to the other.

13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer,
installation) except barrel, trigger group.

14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.

15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62x54R
and .303).

16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession.

17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).

18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which
would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.

19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one
time.

20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.

21. A National License for Ammunition.

22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.

24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.

25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than
200,000.

26. Special Licensing of ranges.

27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).

28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.

29. Banning Gun Shows.

30. Banning of military reenactments.

PLUS:

Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.

Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.

Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including "air soft" and
paintball).

The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from
government programs, the gun manufacturers.

Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to
society.

The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or
caliber.

To own your own copy of this new book, look here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm

No, I did not write this. It was forwarded to me, but I
> feel that in this election year, perhaps more so than ever
> before, we need to know as much about the candidates as we
> possibly can. This is long, but very important, please take
> the time to not only read it but to study it.
>
>
>
> "About a year ago, I would have voted for Obama. I
> have changed my mind three times since then. I watch all
> the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say
> this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view
> MSNBC, CNN, and FOX News, you might get some middle ground
> to work with.
>
> About six months ago, I started thinking, 'Where did
> the money come from for Obama?' I have four daughters
> who went to college, and we were middle class, and money was
> tight.
>
> We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of
> student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.
> Around 1979, Obama started college at Occidental in
> California. He is very open about his two years at
> Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his
> time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply
> himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name
> he used all his life) during this time had two roommates,
> Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.
>
>
> During the summer of 1981, after his second year in
> college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping
> to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India,
> three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his
> roommate's family. My question - Where did he get the
> money for this trip? Neither I, nor any one of my children
> would have had money for a trip like this when they were in
> college.
>
> When he came back he started school at Columbia University
> in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call
> him Barak - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at
> Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least. Where did
> he get money for tuition? Student Loans maybe" After
> Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community
> Organizer for $12,000 Year.
>
> Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in
> New York. By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony'
> Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in
> Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this
> year.
>
> Rezko was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the
> Arab-American Business and Professional Association.
>
> About two hears later, Obama entered Harvard Law School.
> Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School?
> Where did he get the money for Law School? More student
> loans?
>
> After law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered
> him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job
> with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what?
> They represented 'Rezar' which was Rezko's firm.
>
>
> Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial
> contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003,
> Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago
> Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in
> providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S.
> Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood
> District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than the asking
> price. With
> ALL those Student Loans, where did he get the money for the
> property? On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita,
> purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price.
>
> The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born
> Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before
> Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi
> many times with Rezko. Now that we have Obama running for
> President.
>
> Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now
> Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major
> decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett
> born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern
> here? Or am I going crazy?
>
> On May 10, 2008, the Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor
> to Obama was 'sacked after the press found out he was
> having regular contacts with 'Hamas,' which controls
> Gaza and is connected with Iran.
>
> This past week, buried in the back part of the papers,
> Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to
> Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war
> until after he is elected, and he will 'take care of
> things.'
>
> Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that
> were born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all these
> 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama.
> Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class
> in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East? And
> the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, the Washington
> Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This
> Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking
> about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith...' When
> questioned, 'he made a mistake.' Some mistake!
>
> All of the above information I got on line. If you would
> like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barak Obama;
> Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett; Daily Times - Obama visited
> Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008;
> The Times, May 10, 2008.
>
> Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information
> on my own, why haven't all of our 'intelligent'
> members of the press been reporting this? A phrase that
> keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from
> within.'!"

== " 911 Analysis" ==

by Xavier, from XavierThoughts Blog

It was April 17, 2008. Columbus Ohio. A drive-through business owner was investigating his burglar alarm that was set off at his place of business after he had closed the doors for the night. The time was approximately 10:37 PM, thirty-seven minutes after closing time. An intruder had entered the building.

The owner, after investigating the outside of his building and finding nothing amiss, believes he is dealing with a false alarm. He goes inside, and turns on the lights. The intruder is in the owner's office down the hall.

Alerted to the owner's arrival by the lights being turned on, the criminal leaves the office. The two men encounter each other in the hallway. The owner is fortunate to have a firearm. He knows that stored in his office, which the criminal has emerged from, he keeps a .45 automatic and a 12 gauge shotgun. The likelihood that the criminal has found them is extremely high.

The owner's first reaction is to defend himself, and he raises his fists telling the criminal to get on the ground. The criminal refuses, advancing towards the owner. The property owner takes a couple of steps back, draws his gun, and takes control of the situation. The criminal goes to his knees and acts as though he wants to comply as he lies about why he is there. He claims he was locked in the building by mistake. The property owner knows better as he begins to call 911 from his cell phone. Then the criminal gets to his feet again, refusing to comply with the owner's verbal commands at gunpoint to go prone. While the owner dialing the cell phone, the criminal advances towards him, lifting his shirt, obviously trying to close the distance so he can attempt to disarm the property owner.

The armed defender/property owner wisely steps back, maintaining his distance to counteract the criminal's advance. He points his firearm at the criminal's head, again commanding him to back off and get on the ground. The criminal turns around, and walks away while displaying the universal "I'm a felon" sign, placing both hands on the back of his head, fingers interlaced. The criminal goes prone and the owner finishes dialing his cell phone.

A Columbus 911 operator answers. "I've got a gun on a guy that's in my business," the property owner informs her immediately, "Get the cops here."

Realizing he will not be talking his way out of this one, but also that the property owner is distracted, the criminal again gets to his feet. He paces, trying to quickly formulate a strategy as he advances on the business owner. The business owner gives the operator his address while backing up, maintaining distance between himself and the criminal. Quite obviously, the only thing preventing the criminal from attacking the property owner is the prospect of a loud injection of lead to his body.

After having been told why, the operator asks the property owner "Why do you have a gun on him?" She is again informed of the dire situation the property owner faces. Trying to again take control of the situation, the owner begins to give the advancing criminal verbal commands, telling him to back off and get on the floor. The operator, incomprehensibly, begins to give a few commands of her own. "Sir," She says, "You need to talk to me....You need to talk to me...Who is this gentleman that's in your business?... Hello?"

The criminal can barely be seen moving against a background of stock. At one point, it appears he sits on it, and then he appears to be getting on the floor, closer to an escape route, between the pallets of stock, this time. The business owner turns his attention back to the uncomprehending 911 operator. "Yeah, what can I do for you?" he asks.

"You need to talk to me and tell me why do you have a gun to this man's head!" the operator demands. "Is the business closed? Did he break in?" After having been told previously exactly what the business owner was facing, the 911 operator amazingly thinks the property owner may have a gun to a clerk's head.

At this point, the property owner is in grave jeopardy, if responding officers have a false impression of the situation created by the 911 operator.

Fortunately, the property owner corrects her. "Yeah, my business is closed, I was here a half hour. He was hiding in here. I shut the door and then my alarm went off. I come over here and the guy's in my business," he says.

"Stay on the line with me," the operator replies. "I have officers en route." Over a minute has elapsed, with a resistant criminal advancing time and time again on an armed citizen. Each time, the property owner has shown amazing restraint in not shooting the advancing man. Then the operator tells him "When an officer gets there you have to put the gun down. Do you understand that?" The property owner states his understanding.

Next, the criminal, being closer to an escape route, puts his plan into action against the distracted property owner. The criminal introduces another threat to deal with. He lies. Desperate criminals have been known to lie in the past, and this one is no different. The criminal fabricates an illusion out of thin air. He either lies or he speaks aloud to an unknown party, giving the property owner the impression he has an accomplice. As the 911 operator asks for the property owner's name, he responds "There's two of 'em in here."

Now, the playing field has shifted. The armed defender must be prepared for an unseen attack from any direction. His focus must be divided between the man he has on the ground between pallets of stock, an unknown threat, and the 911 operator. He can be seen backing up, scanning the area. Meanwhile, his daughter arrives outside in her automobile, alarmed that it has taken him this amount of time to return home.She toots her horn outside. The criminal, hidden from view in the security video apparently again rises to his feet, with the property owner commanding him to get back down.

Then the 911 operator inexplicably asks, "Do you have a permit for that gun, sir?" No permit is required to own a handgun in Ohio. The man has already informed her time and again that he is on his own property.

"Yes I do," he replies, referring to his concealed handgun permit, "And I'm on my own property," he informs her again.

Now the 911 operator decides to get testy. "OK, well, you need to answer my questions and stop being brief to me," she tells the citizen who is trying to defend himself against a repeatedly advancing, noncompliant criminal. "What is your name?" she asks.

Apparently auditory exclusion has diminished for the property owner and he hears his daughter honking the horn outside. He believes it is the police and he moves to unlock a door to allow them in. The criminal immediately seizes the opportunity, rises to his feet and darts out another door. "Get back here!" the property owner vainly shouts into the darkness outside.

The 911 operator asks for a description, and can finally be heard relaying the information to someone else. "Obviously I've got an emergency situation. I have a gentleman with a guy at gun point," she says, with the alarm blaring in the background. The property owner lets the criminal disappear into the night, turning his attention to the second threat, an illusion the criminal created of an accomplice. Apparently, the 911 operator still has not grasped what is occurring on the other end of the line.

She has been told time and again exactly what is occurring, but her own prejudices are coloring what she is telling others, placing a citizen who is defending his life with admirable restraint at risk for being gunned down by responding officers. "We have officers en route. They're still en route," she tells the property owner, "You called the Columbus police department so we're having to relay the information to the county if you could stay on the line with me."

The property owner is vainly searching for the imaginary second intruder. He shuts off the alarm. "I'm here," he informs her, letting her know he is still on the line.

"I understand that sir," she replies, getting defensive and again showing her inability to understand what she is being told. "I'm, ah, we're trying to get the county out there. You called the Columbus police department."

"I called 911," the property owner corrects her.

"You've called the Columbus police department. Your cell phone has come to the Columbus police department. We're getting on the phone with county to have them respond sir," the 911 operator argues defensively.

Know what lady? Who gives a damn? "I'm glad there were no shots fired," the legally armed business owning citizen observes dryly.

"OK, sir, do not be angry with me," he is told. The business owner continues to search for the second imaginary threat telling the 911 operator "He's in here somewhere."

Four minutes have passed since 911 picked up the phone. "I'm going to patch you through to the county. They are en route. I'm gonna transfer you there. You need to stay on the line," she tells the citizen. Then she places the icing on the 911 cake. "Don't do anything stupid," she says.

A cruiser can be seen finally arriving outside the building as the first police officer arrives on the scene. Meanwhile, the two 911 operators discuss the incident. The first 911 operator tells the other operator that the caller "had a gun on these people that were inside."

Fortunately, a quick thinking uniformed officer is already on the scene to prevent the property owner from being killed because of the 911 operator's misinformation. Obviously, the first responding officer grasps the reality of what is occurring. He does not make the property owner go prone. Indeed it can be seen that he allows the armed defender to retain his weapon in the face of a possible hidden criminal in their midst. They join forces to search the building for the imaginary accomplice, guns drawn.

Several lessons can be learned from this 911 debacle.

First and foremost, when a citizen is trying to preserve their life against a very real threat, they do not need an incomprehensibly dense 911 operator berating them with questions and spreading misinformation of what is occurring. Dividing one's attention between the threat at hand and a cell phone link to a 911 operator's demands places the citizen at grave risk.

Each time the property owner's attention was diverted away from the intruder, the intruder responded by getting up from the floor, advancing, and gaining advantage. I have little doubt that had the intruder discovered the firearms that the owner had kept in his office, he would have shot the property owner to escape. Instead, because the intruder was not armed, he willingly placed his life at risk again and again to gain advantage while he formulated an escape plan to put into action. When he was in the right place, and the citizen was distracted, the criminal upped the ante, making the citizen believe there was an additional threat. Finally, with the citizen's attention divided between a real threat, an imaginary threat, and a demanding 911 operator, the criminal escaped into the night.

The property owner did everything right. He maintained his distance. He did not try to restrain the criminal, only detain him. When the stressors became to much too endure, he kept his focus on staying alive in the face of the imaginary threat and allowed the known threat to escape into the night. He gave a good description to the county dispatcher. The only thing he could have done better would be to initially give the 911 operator his location, a description of the criminal and then one of himself so they could be differentiated by responding officers, and then put the phone down with the line remaining open to record the incident. The property owner did not need the 911 operator's input, nor her defensiveness and judgemental attitude. She was intent on screwing up anything she was told with her own bias anyway. Far better to deal with one real threat and the possibility of another without the additional distraction of a 911 operator clouding your judgment and diverting your attention. It is not a crime to provide the information necessary and put the phone down. Doing so may be the best course of action.

Kudos to the quick thinking responding officer.


To see the security video and hear the 9-1-1 call, go HERE to the blog. It's a VERY good blog by the way, I highly recommend that you sign up!!

BIO:

Xavier is a Registered Nurse who specialized in complex wound care. He has practiced for over twelve years in his community. He often provided nursing service in areas where law enforcement refused to enter without back-up. Xavier now works in surgery. Xavier has been an avid shooter for over 30 years. He strongly supports the 2nd Amendment, opposes gun control of any sort, and carries a weapon 24 hours a day. Xavier is known on various internet gun forums as XavierBreath. He is married with three children, and is moderated by an apathetic one eyed cat, tyrannical Welsh Corgi, and a stalwart German Shepherd Dog. One day, he hopes to be deserving of them all.

"Duquesne University 2008 Gun-Control Symposium"

by Alan Korwin

found at: http://www.gunlaws.com/DuquesneSpeech.htm

James Brady a no-show, wife Sarah hospitalized...

Can a pro-rights perspective survive at an anti-rights rally?

The National Symposium on Handgun Violence was held at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, on April 9, 2008. Ten of the leading gun-control advocates in the nation were scheduled for a coordinated review of "reasonable" limits on the right to keep and bear arms, led by Jim Brady himself, along with David Hemenway of Harvard and a host of others. News of the event and its surprise ending (covered at the end of this report) has not made national headlines.

A courageous decision was made to provide "balance," which meant the organizers eventually found me (thanks to a referral from Alan Gura, Dick Heller's attorney in the D.C. gun-ban case). They got me last-minute non-stop tickets from Phoenix, a room (a very nice room I might add), and 15 minutes at the podium. Ten against one. Hah. I had them outnumbered.

I've been studying persuasion skills for a long while now, and here was an acid test. Was it possible to address an audience like this and not get booed off stage? Could I manage civil discourse with the participants at the luncheon beforehand, maintain composure through the staging, and end up sociable at the afterglow dinner at a fine restaurant?

It's my belief that the words exist in the universe to convince anyone of anything true, regardless of their predispositions. The trick is in finding those words, in the moment, and delivering them in a way that works, with the proper aplomb. You may not always find the words, but the words are always there. Think of it this way. What would Jesus say. The words are there. Could I find enough of them?

They scheduled me near the end, which was a good thing. I got to hear the keepers of the faith, the bearers of the sacred messages, tell 700 people and a gaggle of camera crews and reporters that -- guns are bad; crime is caused by guns; every gun-control scheme you've ever heard of is good; gun confiscations will solve the crime problem; we the people are too dangerous, irrational, unpredictable and incompetent to be allowed to bear arms; and that people on government payrolls (they didn't frame it that way but it's what they were saying) should have all these deadly dangerous malevolent guns. I'm putting this all more bluntly than they did, or than I ever would when wearing my hat of tasteful persuasive moderation.

We were briefed at lunch beforehand on how to handle hecklers, if any. Everyone took turns genuflecting in the direction of civility, and calm affirmation of a desire to tactfully handle any outburst in the unlikely event we faced any. The antis might attract some guff, but it was pretty obvious, though unspoken, that it was me, in my nice navy blazer and sharp red tie, who might face some opprobrium. I disarmed their fears by saying I didn't want to hear anyone cry out, "Don't taze me bro," and we all had a good laugh. When one of the black women asked why I love guns, I looked at her and asked sheepishly, "Are you stereotyping me dear?" We laughed some more.

Metal detectors were installed at the entrance, a precaution we were told, because five athletes were shot on campus several years ago (none fatal thank God), which was a motivator for the conference in the first place. I've seen this before -- pro-rights gun conferences, walk right in. Anti-rights conferences, bristling with armed security and pat downs. What's wrong with that picture?

I counted at least 14 crisply uniformed campus police, bearing 9 millimeter semis with a pair of double-stack extra mags on their duty belts. We had some great conversations, though the other speakers seemed to avoid these people. I had them laughing about all the guns in this anti-gun conference. As more showed up I kept telling them that now I REALLY felt safe. We swapped gun talk, war stories, a few thanked me for being there. I knew I had at least a few people on my side -- the ones with the guns.

When my turn came, I was pretty choked up. Tom Mauser, who came before me, had lost his 15-year-old son at Columbine. No matter where you stand on the RKBA issue, that is just hard to endure. I have a daughter in school. I worry for her every day. No amount of even fascist controls can stop a psycho bent on destruction.

He had put on his son's shoes for his speech, and took them off to show the crowd. He was walking in his murdered son's shoes. I'm getting choked up just writing this. It was awful, compelling, deeply moving. The photographers crowded in to get that shot, and it's the image that ran in all the papers the next day. He had used his dead son's shoes effectively.

I walked the steps to the lectern and thanked the university for being courageous and including me. It was gutsy of them to have a speaker on the other side of the fence at a symposium like this. And I told them it was really hard for me to do, in the face of the tragedy and mind-numbing statistics we had been hearing. It was the right place for me to start, the right words to use, all deeply heartfelt. The audience quietly absorbed my opening remarks.

The university asked me here, I told them, so you could have some measure of balance, so you could see that this conference is only half the equation. I'm here, and I held up the sign I had used at the Supreme Court case a few weeks ago, to make sure you keep in mind that Guns Save Lives too. Guns Stop Crime (and another matching sign). Guns Protect You. Look how many guns there are in this room. You know why they're there -- because guns have a purpose, a social utility that's important and should not be overlooked.

Their emotions had been played upon all afternoon, so I continued the trend. I told of a woman awakened to find a knife-wielding, ski-masked intruder in her home, and how she had to shoot him while crouched behind her bed, after having called 911. She had to keep firing until the big guy finally collapsed. The police arrived only nine minutes later. You could hear a pin drop.

Would you deny this woman her right to live, by taking her gun away? Isn't the message, "If it saves one life..."? Do you have the moral authority, or a sense of self righteousness that says she must die because you think guns are bad? I pressed on.

Mary Ann Watkins got an award here in Arizona at our tenth anniversary CCW banquet. We passed our discreet-carry law against a backdrop of hysterical clamor about blood in the streets, shootouts at traffic lights, and dead bad waiters. Ten years had proven that was nonsense, a concoction of irrationally scared uneducated minds and a compliant media. None of it happened (and no news corrections were printed).

Mary Ann had stopped at a lonely desert rest stop on the way to Phoenix from Yuma. A burly trucker followed her into the ladies' room. Maybe he just wanted to borrow her lipstick? (It didn't get the laugh I thought it would). When she pointed her sidearm at him he left, muttering, "Bitches with guns, bitches with guns." Did she save her life, or prevent a rape? We don't know, we can never know. But that's how most of these encounters take place, the gun isn't even fired. Would you condemn this slight-of-build history teacher to death because you have no stomach for the other side of the equation?

The audience was mine. I had achieved my primary goal. Show a roomful of fearful anti-rights activists that guns are good sometimes, and not get yelled at for it. Bring reason and insight to a crowd, steeped in ignorance and fear, that sorely needed it. I had found the words, and the demeanor, and made the most of it. The university had done good finding me.

While I was on a roll, I mentioned something about me that's true, that most people don't realize. I'm actually a utopian pacifist. I look forward to and hope for a world with no weapons of any kind, in an era of enduring peace, prosperity, abundance and harmony. You should too, it would be a good thing. Until then I say disarm everyone -- bad guys first. And I held out my Disarm Criminals First sign.

We can't get to that world because of what I call the Four Horseman of Human Havoc -- Angry, Hungry, Stupid and Wicked. Oh, we might be able to solve Hungry someday, but the other three? And that's the rub. Until there is a fundamental change in human nature, the good guys need the guns to protect themselves from the bad guys. That's why you have all those armed people in the room, right? No one disagreed. If guns suddenly disappeared, the good guys would have to invent them all over again. That's because Guns Protect You.

It's easy, I told them, to imagine a gun-free world. It's very easy. Guns are a relatively new invention -- just go back in time a little ways. What do you get? Genghis Kahn, Attila the Hun, Julius Caesar, and my favorite, Xena the Warrior Princess (again, no laughs). They wiped out entire towns, raped plundered and pillaged, all without guns. When they came to town, that's when you really needed a gun -- and not just a six shooter.

Which leads to a counterintuitive truth. We're safer now than we were then when there were no guns. The ability to effectively project force keeps us safer. You couldn't ride the highways back then, now you can. For all the crime you hear about, things aren't all that bad.

Those of you who just want guns to go away, you don't want to take guns away from the police do you? Heads shake no. Of course you want the police armed... and that's a very pro gun position. You instinctively understand the value of guns. You just want someone else to hold it for you. But Jeff Snyder, in his landmark book Nation of Cowards, suggests it is unethical, immoral and politically corrupt to entrust your right to and precious gift of life to someone else.

And this brings us to one of the really ugly truths about the "gun problem" that no one wants to look at. If you really want to cut down on the crime and "gun deaths" as they like to call it, you've got to start recognizing that there is a demographic component to this problem.

There are social, economic and geographic aspects to the issue. But no one wants to confront that. Well if you keep sweeping it under the rug, you can kiss your chances of really making headway goodbye. And as you encroach on the human rights of innocent people instead of the root problems, you can expect fierce resistance to your plans, and that resistance is justified.

Also, if you want to cut the "gun deaths" in half, recognize that many if not most are actually "war deaths," killings in the war on some drugs. The government wages this war, encouraging armed camps, and they shoot at each other and themselves. Declare an armistice and stop the killing. You'll reach your goal faster than fighting the civil rights lobby that protects the Second Amendment.

Ask a politician when we can declare victory and stop, or just declare defeat and stop, and you'll learn it's a perpetual war, like Orwell warned us about. The analogy to alcohol prohibition couldn't be clearer. While the ban is on, the killings continue. Stop the war, the killings go away, even though all the problems caused by the vegetable products continue.

The speakers railed about the availability of guns. But guns are less available now than they used to be. Before 1968, anyone could buy guns through the mail. There were no national age limits, waits, papers, no controls of any kind on guns in the Sears Roebuck catalog (12 pages worth), the hardware store, or even in comic books I used to read. Some of the malevolence we see, that all of us in that room want to see end are not about the guns, they're about the social factors we would rather ignore.

When I asked the hotel front desk, the doorman, and the cops I saw if it was safe to take a walk while I was in downtown, they all said sure, but don't go in THIS direction, or walk in THAT part of town. Nebraska and Montana have tons of guns, but not the problems downtown Pittsburgh is wrestling with. You all better start looking at that part of this. People were listening.

It was getting near time to close. I asked for show of hands: "How many of you really really hate guns?" At last, some audience heckle energy, and a few shouts with a lot of raised hands. One guy stood up to spew how much he hates guns. I luckily found the words again, and told him I'll stay afterwards and we can talk as long as you like (he didn't stay, but I would have enjoyed testing my mettle against a died-in-the-wool gun bigot like that).

I waited till they settled back down. Softly, slowly, I breathed into the microphone, "It's not good to hate."

Some nervous squirming and some snickers from those who suspected I had prepared that remark in advance. Hey, I prepared all my remarks, it took me days. I used this as a lead-in for my message about hoplophobia, the morbid fear of guns.

There's a lot of hate and anger in the anti-rights movement (I mostly avoided saying anti-gun anything, it was all about anti rights and pro rights). A lot of the anti-rights debate is actually a medical issue, not a policy debate. I tried to get everyone in touch with the hatred in their hearts, the hoplophobic undercurrents. People who suffer from this pernicious phobia are deserving of sympathy, and in need of treatment. I don't think they liked that. But they heard it. Now they can just wander around in denial (a symptom of the condition by the way).

I summarized my main points and, since Duquesne is a Catholic school, I closed with "God bless and keep America, the ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments. Thank you." The applause was as good as any other, except for Tom who, choking back tears, got an ovation.

Oh yes, the surprise ending. James Brady didn't appear, because his wife Sarah fell critically ill and was hospitalized. News of the medical emergency was first announced publicly at the end of the symposium, but has not traveled far. There has been no word on her condition, said to involve pneumonia.

--------

I learned some things, not the least of which was how to handle such an event. Getting into shouting matches is easy. Getting your point across is easy too, but the tactics are totally different, rather alien, and quite satisfying. There's a lot of sit quiet and listen, hold your disagreement to yourself, bite your tongue, gain trust, and choose your moment for low hanging fruit -- the basket will fill in due course.

It also became apparent from conversation that Mr. Hemenway hates the NRA, for he sees them as intractable and unyielding on any common-sense (to him) gun proposals. He couldn't hear, or perhaps I couldn't find the words to let him know, that they want crime to go down as much as anyone, it serves their purposes perfectly, makes their battle to preserve rights so much easier.

He outright rejected the idea that if a rule would disarm criminals without adversely affecting we the people, they would be there as quickly as I would. Of course his proposals, which seem reasonable to him, would place draconian repressions on your freedom, but he doesn't see it that way. He counts numbers of dead, draws conclusions from his stats, and to paraphrase Will Smith in I Robot, may be the dumbest smart person around. Highly intelligent with a tremendous command of statistics, he seems to clutch at ignorance of underlying causes, where solutions lie.

Pittsburgh collected 990 crime-associated guns last year. Of these 70 were possessed by their owners, and 80 had been reported stolen. nearly 70% though had been bought by straw purchasers and here's the chilling part. The buyers were the drug-addicted girl friends of the men who wanted the guns, the women's drug suppliers. Do you see? Arresting the women does little, they're victims, not habitual gun runners, and unlikely to make another buy except for another boyfriend (and jail space is too valuable to waste on them). The bad guys are rarely caught with the guns, so prosecuting them is virtually impossible. I have no idea how to stop that, without banning gun sales altogether and putting 700,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun users a year at unacceptable risk.

C-SPAN recorded the whole thing, along with several local stations. As soon as any of you hear when the broadcasts are scheduled, you've got to let me know, and I'll spread the word. My arms are tired and my nose is sore (a line from my tune Miguel Row Your Coke Ashore), time to stop.

I took some cool pictures, will post them here in a few days: http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm

-Alan.

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus, 505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
(This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.

"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little." --Edmund Burke

 

Some more info I found on media darling Obama

 

"Obama and Guns: Two Different Views"

by John Lott Jr
found at www.foxnews.com

PREFACE: This is a John Lott Jr. article that I found at FoxNews last week, and I knew I wanted to show you. Normally, I have an excellent article written by a professional trainer, but this was too important to pass up- plus, I really like John Lott Jr. Once again, it's about Obama. I don't want you to think Obama has a monopoly on my distaste for the democratic candidates this year... Anyway, here's the article:

................................

Something happens to Democrats on the gun issue when they run for president. For John Kerry during 2004, it was awkwardly posing in brand new hunting gear at a seemingly endless series of hunting photo-ops.

But in what will probably be the most improbable change, the Politico reported on Saturday that Barack Obama was making a big play for gun votes in Pennsylvania. It is not particularly surprising that this change is occurring with the crucial Pennsylvania primary soon approaching.

With about one million of the country's 12.5 million hunters, Pennsylvania is number one in the nation in the amount of time its citizens spend hunting. With about 600,000 people with permits to carry concealed handguns, Pennsylvania also has more permit holders than any other state.

Others, such as Jim Kessler, vice president for policy with Third Way, a progressive think tank, view Obama as starting to position himself for the general election.

Yet, it should be a hard sell.

Obama has consistently supported gun control legislation that came up while he was in the Illinois state legislature and the U.S. Senate.

For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a "ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" and he responded "yes."

Realizing how damaging this could prove in the general election, his presidential campaign "flatly denied" Obama ever held this view, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race.

But then IVI provided Politico the questionnaire with Obama's own handwritten notes revising another answer. Members of IVI's board of directors, some of whom have worked on Obama's past campaigns, told Politico that "I always believed those to be his views, what he really believes in, and he's tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate."

But the IVI questionnaire isn't the only one out there.

In 1998, another questionnaire administered by IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test didn't ask about banning all handguns, but it did find that Obama wanted to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."

Indeed, such a ban would outlaw virtually all handguns and the vast majority of rifles sold in the United States.

In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which funded such anti-gun groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder of pro-control research in the United States.

In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI's question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said "Oh, you are the gun guy."

I responded "Yes, I guess so." He simply responded that "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."

When I said it might be fun to talk about the question sometime and about his support of the city of Chicago's lawsuit against the gun makers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.

If taken literally, Obama's statement to me was closer to what the IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test found, indicating that Obama's bans would extend well beyond handguns.

Obama also opposes the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite all the academic studies to the contrary, that "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

Even Hillary Clinton disagrees with him on this.

The Obama campaign's strategy largely follows 2003 surveys produced by Democratic pollster Mark Penn showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the 2nd Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on."

It was the same strategy that all the Democratic presidential candidates seemed to follow in 2004.

Earlier this year, Karlyn Bowman at the American Enterprise Institute said: "The Clinton and Obama campaigns know the public opinion data on the issue well. . . . the right to be able to own a gun seems to be firmly held, and I think that's why both candidates say what they say."

In practice, saying that Obama now believes that the Second Amendment means that there is an individual right to own guns doesn't mean anything if it can't even prevent guns from being banned. And even today, despite the pressure from the Pennsylvania primary, Obama is unwilling to state that DC's or Chicago's ban on guns are unconstitutional.

Obama's website only recognizes two legitimate purposes for civilian ownership of guns: "hunting and target shooting." The notion that people might want to protect themselves when the police are not around isn't something that he sees as legitimate.

On both his Iraq and trade policies, Obama has already faced the embarrassing situations where his top advisors have had to tell people in other countries not to worry because he doesn't believe what he is telling American voters.

With guns, it sure looks like Obama is again telling voters what they want to hear, not what he plans on doing.

 

 

Local stuff here.  See how literally everywhere we turn, our traditions and values are getting cut away?  And people ask me how I can so adamantly, almost ferociously, support and be a NRA member?  The truth is the same as when we were children.  Give them and inch and they'll take a mile.  First time I shot a gun, I was 5.  I plan on doing the same with my son.  Had I been around for both my other children's early years, it would be the same.  And my wonderful wife supports me 100%.  Heck, she hunts and shoots and loves every minute of it.  That's how I knew we were made for eachother!  So read on to see the local outrage.  I am actually waiting for something to come up in our county.  My daughter's ROTC team does this same thing.  However, I believe since they are sponsered by the US Army, they cannot force these regulations on them.  Hooorahh!

 

..TR> ..TABLE>

 

2:41 AM 

1 Comments

(Add Comment) |

2 Kudos

Translate

Outrage Of The Week, 04/11/08

Friday, April 11, 2008

This week's outrage comes from North Carolina, where an East Wake High School principal, acting with the support of the area superintendent, stopped the school's Marksmanship Team from participating in a decades-old tournament, less than one day before the competition.   The reason?  Well, though state law allows firearms education at schools, the county in which the school resides bans firearms from school campuses and prohibits students from carrying firearms on school trips.  Apparently, one of East Wake High School's principals, Sebastian Shipp, determined that the policy extended the prohibition to students participating in an off-campus event--namely, the tournament that the 16-member marksmanship and orienteering team had been preparing for--so he barred the team from participating.  Area superintendent, Danny Barnes, supported Shipp's decision noting that these kinds of decisions are up to each principal.  Commenting on the policy, Wes Seegars, chairman of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission said, "I can appreciate the fact they may have a policy, but all the government agencies need to remember, they're there to serve the public.  There is something lost in a policy that does not serve the needs of the community."  The decision nullified months of practice by the 16-member marksmanship and orienteering team.  So, we have a time-honored, decades-old tournament that is sponsored by a state agency and supervised by adults certified in firearms safety.  A tournament in which students have invested months of disciplined practice.  And less than one day before they are due to compete, they are barred from participating due to a very questionable school ruling.  That's outrageous.

Powered by

English

Albanian

Arabic

Bulgarian

Catalan

Chinese

Croatian

Czech

Danish

Dutch

Estonian

Filipino

Finnish

French

Galician

German

Greek

Hebrew

Hindi

Hungarian

Indonesian

Italian

Japanese

Korean

Latvian

Lithuanian

Maltese

Norwegian

Polish

Portuguese

Romanian

Russian

Serbian

Slovak

Slovenian

Spanish

Swedish

Thai

Turkish

Ukrainian

Vietnamese

..TR>

This little ditty came to me via my weekly newsletter from the NRA, which I am a proud member, along with GOA (Gun Owners of America).  I should have similar news on Billary shortly.  Until then, here is some history of media darling Osama (oopps) I mean Obama.

Self Defense/Castle Doctrine

Standing Guard: Barack Obama..s Slippery Oratory

Click here to download a pdf version of this Standing Guard Column. To understand Barack Obama on the Second Amendment, you have to know about the clash of character between the then-Chicago state senator and an ordinary citizen who exercised his right to armed self-defense in violation of a local gun ban. That citizen was a 52-year-old resident of Wilmette, Illinois, who, on Dec. 28, 2003, woke to find that, during the night, his home had been invaded by a career criminal; a thief who stole household items, keys and the homeowner's car. The victim, Hale DeMar, described his fear in a letter to the Chicago Sun- Times: "For me, the seconds until I found my children still safely tucked in their beds were horrifying . . . The police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, promising to increase surveillance. Little comfort, since the invader now had keys to our home and our automobiles. The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences . . ." Not 24 hours after the first burglary, the thief returned. Using DeMar's house keys, the man entered the home, this time setting off the alarm system, automatically notifying the security company. Given the previous night's lackluster response by police, DeMar was prepared, armed with a handgun--legally purchased years before and kept in a safe. But under Wilmette's gun ban, that firearm in the home was illegal. ..TR> ..TABLE> DeMar confronted the criminal, and believing his children were in danger, shot the burglar, who then fled the home. "Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don't suggest that some village trustee knows better … "If my actions have spared only one family from the distress and trauma that this habitual criminal has caused hundreds of others, then I have served my civic duty and taken one evil creature off of our streets, something that our impotent criminal justice system had failed to do, despite some thirty odd arrests, plea bargains and suspended sentences." The burglar, who was arrested after driving DeMar's stolen SUV to a hospital, had an extensive criminal record. Cook County prosecutors ultimately declared DeMar's use of a firearm to be justified. But Wilmette village officials pressed nonetheless to prosecute him for illegal possession of his handgun--a charge punishable by a huge fine and jail time. A town official was quoted in Reason magazine saying, "We need to set the example that we're trying to protect our citizens." And he said, DeMar--by possessing a legally purchased handgun--"is endangering innocent civilians." The outcry of the Illinois public was heard all the way to the state capitol. As a result, the Illinois House and Senate passed legislation in May 2004 to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes or businesses despite local handgun bans. The House accepted the DeMar selfdefense bill by a vote of 86-25 and the Senate moved the legislation on a 38-20 vote. And here lies the seminal moment for state Senator Barack Obama. When Obama turned thumbs down on the bill, he voted against the most basic element of the Second Amendment-- the right of defense of self and family-- the reason that millions of Americans own firearms. When the governor vetoed the bill, Obama once again voted against a citizen's right to self-defense. Despite his vote, the veto override passed the Senate and the House by overwhelming majorities, thereby enacting this bill into law. Now, fast forward to today's slippery oratory of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama just three years from being an unknown state senator--now morphed by the media into a spellbinding u.s. senator seeking to be president of the United States. Using words like "protecting sportsmen," Obama is now saying that he believes in the Second Amendment … but with almost universal exceptions, all of which he lists under the heading of "common sense gun safety laws." "Common sense gun safety" and the Second Amendment? Like endorsing the D.C. gun ban, which outlaws armed self-defense in the home--now being challenged before the u.s. Supreme Court. Obama, who as president would be in the position to nominate justices to that high court, has declared that the d.c. ban doesn't violate the Second Amendment. Using words like "protecting sportsmen," Obama is now saying that he believes in the Second Amendment … but with almost universal exceptions, all of which he lists under the heading of "common sense gun safety laws." ..TR> ..TABLE> "Common sense gun safety" and the Second Amendment? In a "1998 National Political Awareness Test," he pledged to support a "Ban [on] the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons"--meaning most handguns and many rifles and shotguns that you and I own. "Common sense gun safety" and the Second Amendment? Like demanding that the federal government preempt the 40 hard-won state laws creating Right-to-Carry. Here's how the Chicago Tribune put it: "Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed." "Common sense gun safety" and the Second Amendment? Like the draconian proposals funded to the tune of $18,000,000 by the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation while Obama was an activist member of its board of directors. Obama's alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false. Barack Obama is not for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; he..s out to destroy it. ..TABLE> 2:36 AM  0 Comments (Add Comment) | 0 Kudos Translate Obama's alleged support of the Second Amendment is utterly cynical and false.   Posted: 4/11/2008 12:00:00 AM   Powered by English Albanian Arabic Bulgarian Catalan Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Latvian Lithuanian Maltese Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish Thai Turkish Ukrainian Vietnamese