Candidate Obama had said not to worry, he wasn’t going to take our guns, those same guns that so many of us were bitterly clinging to.  However, stipulations were made that there were ways to go around gun bans through ammo, reloading, banning other weapons, etc., and that’s exactly what’s happening.

It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.  To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?

1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition … without a license….”

Hence, reloading ammunition — or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit — is clearly “illicit manufacturing.”

Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.”  And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.”

2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition.

“[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty — and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined.

So, is a BB gun a “firearm”?  Probably.

A toy gun?  Possibly.

A pistol grip or firing pin?  Probably.  And who knows what else.

If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them.  Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty:

* Banning reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.

Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way.  This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty — just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.

* Banning gun clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

* Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances.

* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms.  And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition — a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms.  This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.

I hope that if this gets passed, a ban on reloading would be considered for everything, including Biden’s mouth, of which, he shoots off constantly.

The consideration of the reloading ban via the Inter-American Treaty is not the only “reach around,” the federal government is also considering the ban of certain pocket knives.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is proposing a new definition that could be used to eliminate 8 of 10 legal pocketknives in the United States right now, according to activists who are gearing up to fight the plan.

The federal bureaucracy is accepting comments – written only – that must be received by June 21 before its planned changes could become final, but Doug Ritter of KnifeRights.org, said the implications of the decision would be far-reaching, since many state and federal agencies depend on the agency’s definitions to determine what is legal in the United States.

For a long time, those switchblades that have long stiletto blades that are spring-ejected powerfully from the side or end of the handle have been illegal in the United States, but now a review by the agency of its own approval in 2008 of a particular type of knife for import is raising serious alarms.

Next the government will ban baseball bats and archery as a sport!

And let’s be clear here, the 2nd amendment says “the right to bear ARMS,” not the right to bear guns…

Share on Facebook

The House overwhelmingly approved legislation Wednesday imposing new restrictions on credit-card companies, sending the measure to President Barack Obama to sign in the coming days.

The 364-61 approval, following the Senate’s 90-5 vote Tuesday, will ban several of the industry’s most profitable practices and require clearer disclosure to cardholders about the interest they are paying.

Mr. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which would take effect in late February 2010. One of the toughest provisions: Cardholders won’t see interest-rate increases on existing card balances unless they are 60 days late on payments. And if the customer pays on time for six months after that, the prior rate must be reinstated.

The new rules also would ban some fees, provide more notice for customers to pay bills and require clearer disclosures. For instance, credit-card statements will have to tell customers how long they would need to wipe out their balance if only paying the minimum each month, and how much interest they would incur along the way.

The legislation will force broad changes in the credit-card business, many of which were under way after the Federal Reserve approved similar — though less stringent — regulations in December. Industry officials say the most stringent elements of the legislation will constrain their ability to adjust prices for the riskiest consumers. Card companies have said they are considering shorter introductory rates, higher interest rates and more annual fees for some consumers as a result of the new restrictions.

There was another provision/amendment tacked onto the credit card bill for gun rights and the ability to carry guns inside national parks.  105 Dems in the house and several in the senate voted for this amendment.  YAY NRA!  Tom Coburn put this into the legislation – taking a page right out of the liberal playbook to tack it onto another bill that would most likely get passed.

What the critics have to say about possible issues from the credit card bill:

– Credit will tighten

– This will cause unemployment in the credit industry

– This is more unprecedented government control

– People who pay late are rewarded while those who are responsible have to pick up the bill and get punished

– May actually be more detrimental to the economy in the long-run than people realize

Share on Facebook

Ain’t she “purdy?”

From the NY Daily News:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was bashed for her pricey wardrobe, but now she’s getting a lethal accessory.

The National Rifle Association Foundation will present Sen. John McCain’s ill-fated running mate with a military-style assault weapon next week.

The all-white “Alaskan Hunter” – fashionable until Labor Day – is the civilian version of a modified M-4 rifle carried by U.S. troops overseas.

Alaska’s feisty Republican governor, who is weighing a potential 2012 presidential bid, will receive the rifle made by Templar Consulting at a May 14 NRA banquet.

It’s engraved with Palin’s name and adorned with a map of the state on the collapsible stock – made legal after the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004. The Big Dipper from the state flag is etched on the magazine well behind a vented barrel guard.

The rifle is chambered in .50-caliber “Beowulf.” It’s the same caliber used by heavy machine guns, which can take down big game, and in war zones “can disable both motor vehicles and assailants with body armor,” according to ammo manufacturer Alexander Arms’ Web site.

Templar gun designer Bob Reynolds told the NRA’s magazine that Palin had stood up for Second Amendment gun rights and “I just wanted to do something to give back.”

Share on Facebook

A Study by the Pew Research Center (which is typically liberal so this is great news!)

Overview

Public attitudes on a pair of contentious national issues – gun control and abortion – have moved in a more conservative direction over the past year. In both cases, the changes have been driven in part by relatively large shifts among men, while opinions among women have not changed very much.

For the first time in a Pew Research survey, nearly as many people believe it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns (45%) than to control gun ownership (49%). As recently as a year ago, 58% said it was more important to control gun ownership while 37% said it was more important to protect the right to own guns.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, also finds public opinion about abortion more closely divided than it has been in several years. Currently, 46% say abortion should be legal in most cases (28%) or all cases (18%); 44% believe that abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%). Since the mid-1990s, majorities have consistently favored legal abortion, with the exception of an August 2001 survey by ABC News/Washington Post.

The proportion saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August. The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%).

More Men Back Gun Rights

A widening gender gap is now apparent on both abortion and gun control. A year ago, a narrow majority of men (51%) said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 45% said it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns. Today, by 57% to 38%, men say protecting gun rights is more important.

By contrast, 60% of women say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 33% see protecting gun rights as more important. In April 2008, 64% of women said controlling gun ownership was more important compared with 30% who placed greater importance on protecting the right to own guns.

The balance of opinion among independents has changed substantially over the past year. In April 2008, a majority of independents (56%) said it was more important to control gun ownership; currently, independents are divided, with 48% saying it is more important to protect gun rights and 45% saying it is more important to control gun ownership.

Support for gun rights has increased by 11 points in the Midwest, nine points in the South and seven points in the West; in all three regions, opinion is now evenly divided over whether it is more important to protect gun rights or control gun ownership. By contrast, there has been virtually no change among those living in the East, where a substantial majority (63%) continues to say that controlling gun ownership is the greater priority.

Gun Ownership and Gun Control

As might be expected, people who say they have guns in their home are much more supportive of gun rights than are those who do not own guns. Overall, a third of Americans – including 42% of men and 25% of women – say they have a gun, rifle or pistol in their home.

By a wide margin (68% to 28%), gun owners say it is more important to protect the right to own guns than to control gun ownership. The much larger share that does not have a gun in their home (63% of the public) places greater priority on controlling gun ownership by 63% to 31%.

There are substantial gender differences in views about gun control among gun owners and non-owners alike. Fully three-quarters of men who say they have a gun in their home (75%) believe it is more important to protect gun rights than to control gun ownership; a much smaller majority of women gun owners agree (57%). Similarly, most men who do not have a gun in their home (53%) say it is more important to control gun ownership. But an even higher percentage of women who are not gun owners (69%) place a greater priority on controlling gun ownership.

Abortion Support Slips

Currently, 43% of men say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while 46% say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. In August 2008, a greater proportion of men said that abortion should be legal than illegal (by 53% to 42%).

The change among women has been more modest – 49% believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases, down from 54% last August.

People older than 50 – both men and women – express less support for legal abortion than they did in August 2008. Just 40% of men older than 50 say abortion should be legal in most or all cases compared with 53% last summer. Support for legal abortion among women older than 50 has fallen from 53% to 45%.

There has been little change in opinions among women younger than 50: 53% say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, which is largely unchanged from August (55%). Support for abortion has declined since last April among men under age 50 (from 53% then to 45% currently).

Abortion Opinions: A Closer Look

Between August and late October 2008, the proportion supporting legal abortion ranged from 57% (in mid-October) to 53% (in late October), before declining to 46% currently. Though opinion among some subgroups varied significantly across those surveys, some trends are apparent, aside from the falloff in support among men.

There has been notable decline in the proportion of independents saying abortion should be legal in most or all cases; majorities of independents favored legal abortion in August and the two October surveys, but just 44% do so today. In addition, the proportion of moderate and liberal Republicans saying abortion should be legal declined between August and late October (from 67% to 57%). In the current survey, just 43% of moderate and liberal Republicans say abortion should legal in most or all cases.

Among religious groups, support for abortion has steadily declined since August among white mainline Protestants (from 69% then to 54% currently). And just 23% of white evangelical Protestants now favor legal abortion, down from 33% in August and mid-October and 28% in late October.

The change has been less pronounced among white non-Hispanic Catholics: In August, 51% said that abortion should be legal in most or all cases; in both October surveys, 55% favored legal abortion. In the current survey, 49% of white non-Hispanic Catholics say that abortion should be legal while 42% believe it should be illegal.

About the Survey

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates among a nationwide sample of 3,013 adults, 18 years of age or older, from March 31 – April 21, 2009 (2260 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 753 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 271 who had no landline telephone). Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Both the landline and cell phone samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Detailed information about our survey methodology

The questions in this release were asked of Form 2 respondents only; results are based on 1,521 interviews. For results based on Form 2, one can say that the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence is plus or minus 3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2008 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The sample is also weighted to match current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the sample.

About the Center

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts and are one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

The Center’s purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.

All of the Center’s research and reports are collaborative products based on the input and analysis of the entire Center staff consisting of:

Andrew Kohut, Director
Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research
Carroll Doherty and Michael Dimock, Associate Directors
Michael Remez, Senior Writer
Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Robert Suls, Shawn Neidorf, Leah Christian and Jocelyn Kiley, Research Associates

Kathleen Holzwart and Alec Tyson, Research Analysts

Share on Facebook

Mr Grodin appeared on the Mike Huckabee Show today, and the first thing out of his mouth, is “I think we need to make it difficult for people to buy guns” he goes on to say “they release people out of a mental hospital and can buy a gun,….people get out of prison and they do not know where they are”.

Well Mr Grodin, it would seem that once again, knee jerking, anti 2nd amendment reactionaries are once again going to infringe upon the rights of the hard working, law abiding citizen. Every time gun laws are enacted, crime rates do not change very much. Criminals, and those who will endeavor to make money off of arms trafficking, will continue to do so.

It is the anniversary this week, of Columbine. Mr Grodin was asked if the boys had lived, what would be the proper adjudication. He goes on to say that, they were mentally ill, and that would be the place to start. Lets put them in a mental hospital, give them a nice room, and draw pretty pictures. This is a pretty delusional point of view. Columbine was a premeditated, well thought out, well planned attack, just as 9/11 was.

Further, Mr Grodin, is pushing NY State AG to push the Supreme Court to rule on why the Felony Murder Rule, which states that any person that partakes in certain felony crimes to include, Murder, Rape, Kidnapping, Burglary or Robbery, that results in death, weather intended or unintended during the commissioning of the crime, can be held culpable for the death and thus be sentenced up to life without parole.
….early on the morning of March 10, 2003, a hung over 20-year-old named Ryan Holle lent his car to his roommate, who then went out with others and committed a robbery and murder. At the time of the crime Ryan Holle was asleep in his bed. He is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole at the Wakulla Correctional Institution near Tallahassee, Fla. The prosecutor explained to the jury in 2004 “No car, no crime.” Mr. Holle had no criminal record. He had lent his car to his roommate countless times before….
Though I do not agree with the sentencing in this case, just think of all the cases where people knowingly assisted in a crime where death or rape resulted. I am sorry, but if you are there participating, you are just as guilty.
Many of these liberals will say this is a gross miscarriage of justice. I beg to differ, but if that is the case then the prison guards at the concentration camps are absolved. What is the difference? They were there but did not actually participate. Or the guards at prison camps where American servicemen in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam were treated brutally, cannot be held culpable because they did not actually partake in a crime against these American Service Members.
Where does the insanity stop? I hope we take logical steps instead of making liberal knee jerk reactions.

Share on Facebook

As many are aware, times are tough not only in the states, but worldwide.  What accompanies times of uncertainty and turmoil is usually not pretty and not sane.  There are many things that can cause a person to snap, whether it’s a history of psychiatric problems, the unknown, the loss of a loved one, a break-up/divorce, the loss of a job, the loss of tons of money in the market, etc.

Well, with everything that is occuring in and around us, there has been an increase in mass murders, homicides and suicides.  Yes, guns were involved in many of these cases, but not all.  Guns, also are not the cause of a person snapping or being able to cause harm to people.  Guns can also save lives and they save more lives per year than they kill. 

We have various states and now congressmen and women jumping the gun, pun intended, to pass more restrictive gun rights.  I’m not so sure that would be smart at any time to do, let alone a time when people need more protection, with the possibility of greater turbulence ahead of us.  Statistically, when there are economic downturns there is more violence, robberies, burglaries and criminal activity.  I wrote previously about the laws that Switzerland has when it comes to national security and every citizen who is able bodied and of a certain age, is required to own a gun and the Swiss have the lowest murder rate in the world.  That to me, is no coincidence.

However, Nancy Pelosi has recently come out swinging and she wants guns registered nationwide.  She swears that they do not want to confiscate guns from average, responsible citizens, but many gun owners would beg to differ, knowing that this has been a goal of the left for some time.  This would just be considered one step closer to achieving that goal.

Many people missed Nancy Pelosi’s statement on Good Morning America last week when she said she wanted all guns registered.  People believe that once registered, this will allow the government to have more control over the citizens of the country and ultimately allow the government to track and confiscate guns.  Liberals will say that this is just right-wing paranoia, but what they tend to forget is that gun registration was followed by gun confiscation in various countries and in myriad societies before ours.  History does in fact repeat itself as it is now with the economic crisis, among other domestic and international policy aims concurrently being reached and attempted.

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated.

In May of 1995, Canada’s Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were “grandfathered,” which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

“Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule…The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain.”

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as “assault weapons.” This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered “assault weapon” had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state.

Some faulty reasoning and arguments on behalf of the democrats who want to ban gun rights is the following:

Politicians and bureaucrats routinely claim that registration helps solve crimes. If a registered gun is used in a crime and left at the crime scene, registration supposedly lets the police trace the gun back to the criminal. Though this turn of events might work on fictional TV crime shows, it virtually never occurs in real life. Criminals’ guns are rarely left at crime scenes. When guns are left behind, it usually is because a crook has been seriously injured or killed and the police are poised to catch him anyway.

The few guns left at crime scenes rarely – if ever – are registered to the perpetrator. If they are registered at all, it is to someone else, whose piece was stolen. Despite what Mrs. Pelosi might think, those who use guns to commit major crimes such as robbing and killing are unlikely to respect her request to file paperwork so the government can catalog the tools of their trade.

If Liberals really think that taking guns away will solve the problem and violent crime will decrease, they really need to see someone and work on their delusions.  Just like the ban on alcohol during prohibition, there was still plenty of booze to go around, it’s called the black market, and criminals right now use the black market and illegal vendors to obtain guns – what’s to stop them when they ban guns from responsible, law-abiding citizens?  It will just make their jobs that much easier.

Gun sales have been on the rise since Obama’s election, and no, it isn’t due to “racists” in the country.  The race card needs to be chopped up and thrown away.  This has more to do with Liberals (not blue dog Democrats), having the White House, the House and a lot of the Senate, running amok, and knowing that part of their agenda is an eventual gun ban, and that the CIC is a huge proponent of radical gun restrictions per his record.

The leading legislation by which the Democrats in Congress and the White House want to register your guns is HR 45, commonly known as the Blair Holt bill or simply Blair Holt’s. The measure, introduced January 6 by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) (That same Bobby Rush who hailed Fidel Castro as a great man, the same Bobby Rush that just went down to Cuba with other members of the CBC, that same Bobby Rush who was a former member of the Black Panthers) from Michelle Obama’s Real Chicago, includes – but is not limited to – the following restrictions:

* It will be “unlawful” to own a firearm without a license.
* Be required to submit a picture and thumbprint.
* Provide certification that the firearms are properly stored.
* Pass a written firearms exam which tests a persons knowledge of the safe storage of firearms in the presence of children, safe handling of firearms, risks associated with firearms, legal responsibilities of a firearm owner, and anything else the Attorney General deems fit.
* A release of any mental health records.
* Makes private sales illegal.
* Establishes a Federal Record of Sale system which records make, model, serial number, license of the transferee and name and address of the transferor.
* Provides for inspection of your home
* Reporting of lost or stolen firearms
* Notice of change of address

Kiss your constitutional rights goodbye if this type of legislation passes.  Gun registration and restriction has already failed in predominantly Liberal areas like D.C.:

DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier inadvertently admitted that the District’s gun registration program was a failure. According to the Chief, “Honestly, there are thousands of handguns that were registered in the city and I don’t know whether those handguns are still in the city.” Of the 41,000 handguns registered, the police department cannot account for 36,000.

The handguns in question were registered back in 1976 when the District’s near-total handgun ban became law. The law grandfathered handguns that already existed in the city, but required the owners to register them. The owners of 41,000 handguns dutifully registered the guns. Yet now, 32 years later, the District does not know where 88% of those handguns are.

The other issue that is conveniently occurring, which is feeding into the fear-mongering and persuasion on the left, to make people believe that guns are bad (based on the most recent gallup poll), is the Mexican ordeal.  Mexican Ambassador, Autoro Sarukhan, is stating that 90% of the guns and weapons in Mexico come from the United States.  This conveniently works both ways.  It allows for an already overly, America blaming, apologetic, progressive, anti-gun administration to agree and kowtow to yet another country to get their agenda through and it also allows for a corrupt government to lay the blame on someone else for their own inability to deal with corrupt police officers, government officials and their own drug problems.

During an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Sarukhan said on the Arizona and Texas borders with Mexico alone, roughly 7,000 licenses for federal firearms had been granted.

“And a lot of the weapons that are being bought by the drug syndicates, either directly or through proxy purchases, are coming from those gun shops,” he said.

Sarukhan isn’t the only one to cite this myth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, California Sen. Diane Feinstein and Willliam Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have all said that 90 percent of weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the U.S.

But his statements do not add up and there is a lot of data that counters his argument in a very succinct and comprehensive fashion:

According to the figures obtained from ICE and ATF officials by Fox News, only about 17 percent of the weapons recovered from cartel-related crime scenes in Mexico actually originate in the United States.

Well one reason is, it’s basically the sampling issue. Number one, Mexico is finding guns at the crime scene which may have no markings at all. They may be clearly Chinese or Russian weapons, and so they are not submitting those to the United States for, quote, tracing. A U.S. weapon has a serial number on it, a manufacturer on it, it says where it is made. So clearly, Mexico is not going to give over weapons to the U.S. for tracing which clearly don’t come from here. We had an ICE official, special agent in charge here in Phoenix tell us, and I’m quoting from him, “Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number. Those are not submitted. Only we trace weapons with U.S. markings.

Sarukhan has claimed that Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States, or 730,000 a year. But the official statistic from the Mexico attorney general’s office says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

Many of these guns are not “personal” guns either, they are guns that would be obtained only by the Mexican government for their defense department.  There are grenades, mortars, and AK-47s that have been confiscated in Mexico as of late – those are not guns or weapons that people own.  Those are weapons that are being sold on a black market or sold by corruptocrats in their own government.

Join the NRA – I just did – and actually went to my first shooting range a couple of weeks ago! The NRA has some great facts on guns that you will not see reported in the media.

To best sum up what is going on with the gun wars is the following statement:

Sun Tzu was never wiser than when he said “All warfare is based on deception.” So when Ben Tracy (CBS News), Andrea Mitchell (NBC News) and myriad hosts from CNN all claim that the Mexican drug war is the fault of lax gun laws in the United States, you know they’re all reading from the same playbook.

Share on Facebook

There is a lot of blame going around these days as to who is or should be held responsible for the increase in mass killings and murders.  First and foremost, the blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who commit these crimes.  However, I think a more reasonable and honest summation of why there is an increase is due to the turbulence of the economy. 

Almost all of the recent mass killings had one thing in common – these people had been down on their luck and had lost their jobs.  Many also had a history of mental problems, whether depressed, suicidal etc. 

I think the anguish and anxiety that people are feeling with today’s market, unemployment rate and watching their 401(k)s diminish and evaporate before their very eyes is a cause of what we are seeing.  The Washington Post reports:

In Binghamton, N.Y., a Vietnamese immigrant upset about losing his job burst into an immigration center and killed 13 people before killing himself. In Pittsburgh, police said a gun enthusiast recently discharged from the Marine Corps opened fire and killed three police officers. And in Graham, Wash., investigators said a man whose wife was leaving him shot and killed five of his children in their mobile home before taking his own life.

The carnage that occurred during less than 48 hours last week capped a recent string of unusually brazen mass killings, which crime experts say have touched more people and occurred in more public settings than in any time in recent memory. Comparative statistics are difficult to come by, but during the past month alone, at least eight mass homicides in this country have claimed the lives of 57 people. Just yesterday, four people were discovered shot to death in a modest wood-frame home in a remote Alabama town.

The factor underlying the violence, some experts think, is the dismal state of the nation’s economy. Criminologists theorize that the epidemic of layoffs, the meltdown of storied American corporations and the uncertainty of recovery have stoked fear, anxiety and desperation across society and unnerved its most vulnerable and dangerous.

Experts agree that most mass murderers share one trait: a traumatic event such as a layoff, divorce or separation that sets off an internal rage and a desire for revenge.

Of course an article from the Washington Post had to get at least one pot-shot in there about guns…

“The common denominator in all these is that they’re all using a gun,” Helmke said of the recent killings. “You don’t see police officers in Pittsburgh being killed by people throwing knives at them. . . . We’ve always had violence, but in the old days you couldn’t take out so many people so quickly. Now we make it very easy to do that.”

Two more killings have occurred recently – at a Korean Christian Retreat and a mother killing her son in Florida at a shooting range.

Share on Facebook

Prayers for the police officers, their family and friends and the citizens of Pittsburgh, PA.

A 23 yr. old male, who was reportedly dishonorably discharged from the marines, while in boot-camp, and also expelled from North Catholic HS killed 3 cops and injured 2 others after police responded to a domestic disturbance call.  He was apparently out drinking the night before and this may have lead to the initial phone call when policed busted into his home.  We recently learned that he was also laid off from his job – which I believe to be one of the biggest reasons we will see violent and disturbing behavior in the coming months or at least until the economic situations stabilizes and subsides.

Here is whatt came over the wires:

Confirmed by local pgh media, three Pittsburgh police officers killed.

Per Andy Shehan, kdka, two officers killed in house; then perp went to second story window. Cars on street ‘riddled with bullets.’ Fire fight to try and re-enter Poplawski house to retrieve injured officers.

Per Andy Shehan,
The set up a perimeter around the house; city pd; city swat; Allegheny county sheriff; pa state police; all commanded to fire on second story at once so officers could get into house to get officers; rescue of officers under a hail of gunfire. One officer already dead when they got to him; huge gun battle to get injured officers out.

Jon Burnett, kd weather man ‘knows’ guns, he is in on the interview w/Shehan (at the scene). Poplawski’s range was approximately three football fields with guns he had…officers did not stand a chance; Poplawski was out drinking the night before…conjection on Shehan’s part, saying that that is what may have caused the initial domestic fight in house. And then it escalated. Two units responded to initial ‘domestic’ situation.

Per Chief Harper, Officers had responded to that address at least twice before. They are investigating the records and the calls.

Story still developing… And there have been reports that this was politically motivated but I will wait until further reports are made and after the media projects and spins this the way they want and the true facts and details begin to rise to the surface.

I’m sure this will turn into more anti-gun legislation measures 3…2…1…

Share on Facebook

New York: Six Anti-Gun Bills to be Heard Next Week!

Friday, April 03, 2009

Please Contact Your State Legislators Today!

Next week the Assembly Codes Committee will take up various anti-gun bills in an attempt to further their divisive agenda.  The following anti-gun bills have been placed on the agenda for Monday, April 6:

Assembly Bill 1093, sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-88), would impose new requirements on firearm retailers and require that they obtain insurance to cover criminal acts committed after the legal sale of a firearm.  The companion bill to AB 1093, is Senate Bill 1715, sponsored by State Senator Eric Schneiderman (D-31).

Assembly Bill 1326, sponsored by Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D-4), would mandate handguns be equipped with technology which would prevent them from being operated by children.

Assembly Bill 2881, sponsored by State Assemblyman David Koon (D-135), would ban the possession and use of “frangible” ammunition.  The companion bill for AB 2881 is Senate Bill 2379, sponsored by State Senator Frank Padavan (R-11).

Assembly Bill 2882, sponsored by State Assemblyman David Koon (D-135) would provide for the submission of expended projectiles and shell casings and guns to the state police pistol and revolver ballistic identification electronic databank

Assembly Bill 5844, sponsored by State Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg (D-20), would enact the “children’s weapon accident prevention act” and creates crimes of failure to store a weapon safely and negligent storage.  The companion bill for AB 5844 is Senate Bill 3098, sponsored by State Senator Eric Schneiderman (D-31).

The following anti-gun bill is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Tourism Committee on Tuesday, April 7:

Assembly Bill 7183, sponsored by State Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D-4), prohibits the possession of concealed firearms in any park, campground or other recreation area.

Please call your lawmakers TODAY and urge them to oppose all of the above listed bills.  State Assembly Members can be reached by phone at (518) 455-4100.  To find your Assembly Member, click here.  Your State Senator can be contacted through the Senate switchboard at (518) 455-2800.  To find your State Senator, please click here

What timing too!  Right after the horrific shootout/massacre in Binghamton, New York yesterday.  The irony is that Binghamton was a gun-free zone in New York already… Never waste a crisis… Let’s not blame this on the crazy individual, but on the guns now… Ridiculous!

Why is it that liberals want to take guns away from those who use them responsibly, yet criminals still manage to obtain the guns in those gun-free zones, which tend to have high crime rates as well?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?

“You can’t control an armed populace!”   Which brings me to my videos of England:

(I think I will post these videos every time anti-gun legislation is on the table to keep reminding the liberals) – it’s a long one so beware!

Share on Facebook

Washington, D.C. is a bastion of liberalism and it is one of the most criminally active and unsafe areas in the nation.  However, the city’s mayor would like to release up to 80% of the city’s inmate to save some money.

I think the obvious question would be how much money would technically be saved if there were more murders, robberies, assaults, etc.?  I’m glad that liberals live in la-la land but I prefer to be realistic.  I think this would actually cause a loss of money due to the criminal activity that can and will result from releasing this many inmates that were obviously put behind bars for good reason.

Washington, D.C. also has some of the strictest gun laws and last time I checked, regular law abiding citizens could not get guns, but criminals somehow still have them at their fingertips.  Good job liberals!  I say release the inmates and let them room with Mayor Fenty and any other politician or bureaucrat that agrees with this insanity.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty wants to help balance the District’s recession-squeezed budget by allowing as many as 80 percent of the city’s inmates to qualify for early release, borrowing a tactic that has stirred controversy elsewhere in the nation.

The city hopes to save $4.4 million in fiscal 2010 under the plan, which would reduce the prison population by 2 percent from its current daily average of 3,000 inmates.

Current law permits sentenced inmates to earn up to five days off their sentences each month by completing specified academic and vocational programs. The new proposal would extend the program to pretrial inmates and allow them to earn time off simply by participating in the programs.

Officials said about 2,400 inmates would be eligible to receive good-time credits under the proposal. If each eligible inmate earned an average of five days of good time, it would reduce the average inmate population by about 65 people.

The plan has drawn at least initial concern from a key D.C. Council member, who stressed the importance of ensuring it would not be detrimental to public safety if enacted.

Please tell that logical Council member to stop making so much sense and pipe down… that just gets in the way of liberal policies.

Share on Facebook