Your Lack of Credibility Tends to Make Me Leary

The Obamessiah is telling gun owners not to worry, that he isn't going to do anything rash.

As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it's not Obama's words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

But it is Obama's words that bother me. He LIED about his association with William Ayers, he LIED about not knowing the hatred that Rev Wright spewed at his church, he LIED his obstruction of the live birth bill, and he LIED about his association with the man who caused the Fannie Mae meltdown.

So why should I believe him about not wanting to confiscate people's guns?

I don't.


Mr Minority

City Gov't Wises Up

It used to be that the vast majority of Americans were civilized and acted that way, and the small criminal element acted like criminals. The purpose of the police was to enforce laws and catch the small proportion of criminals.

But that has changed, now we have a larger portion of the population growing up without morals and our police force can't handle the volume of violent crimes that happen on a daily basis.

So what is a law abiding citizen to do? Arm themselves to protect their families and property, and one large city leader understand this:

ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis city leader frustrated with the police response to rising crime called Tuesday on residents to arm themselves to protect their lives and property.

Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe said police are ineffective, outnumbered or don't care about the increase in crime in his north St. Louis ward. St. Louis has had 157 homicides in 2008, 33 more than last year at this time.

"The community has to be ready to defend itself, because it's clear the economy is going to get worse, and criminals are getting more bold," Troupe, 72, said Tuesday.

Troupe said that when he and residents approached a district police commander last year, they were told "there was nothing he could do to protect us and the community ... that he didn't have the manpower."

He is correct, the police can't protect us from the psychopaths that roam the streets, we will have to protect ourselves.

But the biggest hindrance to an armed public, are the bleeding heart liberals that want to take our guns away and force us to rely upon the ineffectual police. And with Obama and the Donks in control of the gov't, private gun ownership restrictions appear to be on the horizon leaving us vulnerable to this violent thugs.

No wonder gun purchases are up 50% since the election.


Mr Minority

Oh, NO!!! 300 MPH!!!

Drudge has this picture and link to an article about the worlds smallest gun that fires deadly bullets at 300 mph.



(Here is the article)

Oh! My! God!! 4.53mm bullets traveling 300 mph!!!! The world is coming to an end!!

What a bunch of sensationalistic crap!!

That 4.53mm bullet is actually the size of a pellet used in a pellet gun (.17), and that whopping 300 mph is equal to 440 ft/sec which is half of what a pellet gun would spit out.

So all the hype and world ending BS, this gun is less powerful than a simple pellet rifle.

Thanks for the heart stopping scare Matt!


Mr Minority

No Denying the TRUTH About Guns

The Gun Control freaks constantly distort facts, lie and scare the public about gun ownership by private citizens. But now that the issue is being argued in the Supreme Court, the real facts are coming out: Private ownership of guns, reduces crime!

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the 2nd Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled "reasonable" is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban.

The brief notes when the Georgia town of Kennesaw decided to require all residents, with exceptions for conscientious objectors, to keep a firearm at home, home burglaries fell from 66 to 26 to 11 in consecutive years.

In Orlando, the deterrence to criminals who simply knew that their victims may have a gun and may know how to use it and may be willing to do just that had a significant impact, because while Orlando's rapes were plummeting, assaults were up 5 percent across the state and 7 percent nationally.

The brief cites a study that discovered, based on interviews with felony prisoners in 11 prisons in 10 states, one third of the felons had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim," and nearly four in 10 had decided against committing a specific crime because they thought the victim might have a gun.

"Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that 'One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot,'" the study said.

These are not the facts that gun-haters want the public and Supreme Court to know, but they are the facts and the truth, and they cannot be denied!

The only bad guns, are guns in the hands of criminals, not private law abiding citizens.


Mr Minority

Tell Me It Ain't So, Joe!

I am speechless, I am in shock that President Bush would be a Gun Control Freak!!

A District of Columbia gun-control law struck down by a federal court has won surprise support from the Bush administration.

On Friday, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute and is limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" by the government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be upheld, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The problem with Gun Control is, as it is with any control by the Gov't, that it may start off reasonable, but who is to say that reasonable people will stay in power, and the unreasonable will not place draconian restrictions ala Washington DC?

Do I believe that private citizens should own fully automatic machine guns? No, but I also believe that private citizens should be allowed to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns for hunting and home defense, and the problem with Gun Control freaks is that they don't believe that, and always want more restrictions.

I am very disappointed in the Bush Administration for their arguing this case at the Supreme Court in favor of DC's law, very disappointed. And I pray we elect a true conservative to the White House this year, otherwise, we will see more control laws, not less.


Mr Minority

Texas' Self-Defense Law

Liberals coddle criminals, deem them poor misunderstood creatures whose past childhood drove them into a life of crime. I believe that is a load of BULLSHIT!

America is being overran by those that feel they can take your property, rape you or assault you with no consequences, and Americans are getting tired of this and want to protect themselves. And the best way to protect yourself, family and property is by the use of a gun.

Texas now has a Self-Defense Law which allows you to use deadly force to protect yourself, your property and your neighbor's property if need be. This new law is going to be tested by this gentleman:

HOUSTON -- The cha-chick of a shell entering a shotgun's chamber rattled through the 911 line just before Joe Horn stepped out his front door.

Horn, 61, had phoned police when he saw two men break into his neighbor's suburban Houston home through a window in broad daylight. Now they were getting away with a bag of loot.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

He did.

Admirers, including several of his neighbors, say Horn is a hero for killing the burglars, protecting his neighborhood and sending a message to would-be criminals. Critics call him a loose cannon. His attorney says Horn just feared for his life.

Prosecuting Horn could prove difficult in Texas, where few people sympathize with criminals and many have an almost religious belief in the right to self-defense. The case could test the state's self-defense laws, which allow people to use deadly force in certain situations to protect themselves, their property and their neighbors' property.

Three cheers for Mr Horn, there are two less goblins to ply their criminal ways on other law abiding citizens.


Mr Minority

The 2nd Amendment According to the Nuge

Ted Nugent doesn't mince words, and you ought hear his words in this interview about the 2nd Amendment:



The take away line: "I don't like repeat offenders, I like DEAD offenders"

Mr Minority

(h/t My Sister!!)

Fred! Speaks on the 2nd Amendment SCOTUS Case

Fred! speaks on the case the Supreme Court will be deciding dealing with private ownership of guns:

I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.

In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.

The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.

The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.

'Nuff said.


Mr Minority

A Very Important Case for the Supremes to Take

The Supreme Court is deciding whether to take one of the most important cases to reach them in a long while. That is the case of the Right to Bear Arms by private citizens.

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

That could change in the next few months.

The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.

The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.

...

The Second Amendment reads: ''A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.

Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.

The outcome of this case, if the SCOTUS takes it, will have a major impact on our nation. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of private ownership of guns, then our nation will be safer and Gov't kept in check. But if they rule the other way, you may as well kiss you other Rights guaranteed by the Constitution good-bye, because there will be nothing to stop the Gov't from enacting tyrannical laws (especially if the Donks take control of Congress and the White House).

Our Founding Fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for a reason, for citizens to protect themselves from enemies, both foreign and domestic, but primarily, they knew that Americans needed to protect themselves from their own Gov't.


Mr Minority

How About That! Gun Totin' Rednecks Do Serve a Purpose

The bane of the Left, guns, generally owned and used by conservatives must be outlawed in their socialist world. And with the Left's program to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, they have now started hurting one of their other favorite programs - eco-socialism, as Maryland is finding out.

The future of Maryland's conservation efforts may lie in the gun-toting hands of people such as Sharon Nicholson.

Nicholson, 30, spent a recent weekend learning to hunt at a two-day women's clinic sponsored by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. She emerged a member of an endangered species: licensed hunters, whose fees pay for most of the state's wildlife management and preservation funds.

The dwindling number of hunters poses serious problems for many states that rely on millions of dollars from license fees. A continued decline in the number of hunters could mean fewer efforts to protect threatened animal populations and fewer staff members to help motorists who have hit deer, natural resources officials said.

To combat the trend, Maryland officials have stepped up efforts to recruit new hunters, people such as Nicholson, who said she had wanted to hunt ever since she tasted fresh venison for the first time a few years ago.

"If we do not find a way to bring new hunters into the fold, we're facing an insurmountable crisis," said Paul Peditto, director of wildlife and heritage service for the department.

Now this is a major conundrum for the Left - to save worthless critters and open spaces, they must scale back their efforts to get rid of guns, in fact they must encourage people to by guns and kill critters. What is a Lefty to do?

Bruhahahaha! I love it!!


Mr Minority

Do Gun Control Laws Really Work? Nope, Just Ask the Brits

To truly understand the impact of Gun Control, you need to look no further than two of America's East Coast cities, NY and Washington, and the UK. And to help put the results of the UK's gun control into perspective, read this article:

Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun?
British attitudes are supercilious and misguided

Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects.

...

America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens.

...

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

An honest reporting on the effects of gun control and the right to carry concealed weapons is needed before more draconian gun control laws are enacted. But a true honest reporting will not be found by the American MSM, because it does not fit their agenda of disarming America.

Facts don't lie, but people do, and the author of the article, Richard Munday, points out the facts, but the British Gov't and the America anti-Gunners lie about the facts to deceive the public.

It boils down to that the Gov't is disarming honest citizens which needs guns for protection and enabling criminals to use guns, who don't care about breaking gun laws in the first place. With guns, the public has the ability to protect itself from criminals, and more importantly, a tyrannical Gov't, and without them, we are just lambs waiting to be slaughtered.

I like the way the author states this:

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

Mr Minority

Another Reason to Love America

This article was written as a slam to America, but to me it gives me another reason to love this nation. The US is the most armed country in the world.

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

Yes, we love our guns, and because of our guns, the Gov't should fear trying to abolish our God Given Rights. Unlike Great Britain that confiscated the guns from it's people and now is on the road of being either and Islamic Nation or a Nanny Nation, they can't decide which to be.

The 2nd Amendment was written to allow the people to privately own guns, to keep the Gov't in check. And Freedom should keep ringing, as long as the people are armed.


Mr Minority

Don't Like Guns in the Hands of Private Citizens? Then Repeal the 2nd Amendment

The Gun Control Commies have been trying to whittle away our 2nd Amendment Right to own guns for decades. Now they are getting so bold as they want to repeal it.

(CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.

"The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."

Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.

"Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said. He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."

Why is it that when the Left doesn't like a Right the Constitution says can not be violated, they either ignore it, get a activist judge to rule against it or want to repeal it? The reason the Founding Fathers gave us the Right to Bear Arms is because they knew there would be people like Leftard Wittes that want to abolish our Constitution, take over the Gov't and shove their socialism down our throats.

It is the 1st and 2nd Amendments that keep the rapid dogs at bay, Thank God for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.


Mr Minority

Only in Texas!

Texans are the object of many jokes, because we are different, and that is true. You have to drive everywhere, because Like Dude! It is a BIG State. We have cattle with horns that span 9ft across, we have the best B-B-Que, we have oil, high tech, and we also have lots of guns (largest per capita of any state). So where else but in Texas will you find a realtor that gives away Glock 9mms with the purchase of a house?

While other real estate agents are responding to the current buyers' market by offering extras like free appliances, televisions, or a weekend in a luxury hotel, one Texas agent is drumming up business by offering a free Glock pistol with any home purchase of at least $150,000 – if you're a police officer.

And Julie Upton, a Houston-area real estate agent, says her idea is working well. With the median single-family home in Houston selling for $146,000, Upton is targeting the center of the market.

...

She's already given away two Glock pistols.

"So (the ad) has already paid for itself," she told the Houston Chronicle.

Only in Texas!!


Mr Minority

Freedom Hating Anti-Gunners are Making a Serious Challenge to Our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms

Where else should this challenge come from, but by worthless Washington DC, home of the highest crime rate in the nation (I wonder why?). DC has already banned handgun from their violence riddle city, but now they are going after the whole enchilada, a ban on ownership of all guns by a private citizen.

In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

...

Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.

I have mixed feelings about this, on one hand I hate the idea of the bleed-heart liberal anti-gunners trying to take away my constitutional right to bear arms. And on the other hand, I want to see this issue be settle once and for all.

The liberal mindset can't understand the idea of a militia is not just military group, but is individually armed citizens. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote this amendment into the Constitution, they knew that the people needed to be armed to forestall a tyrannical Gov't, which was their intent when they included it. How are the people suppose to prevent the trouncing of their other rights if they don't have the capacity to fight back? The Founding Fathers experienced this themselves, so they knew what would help prevent it - armed citizens.

This case will be closely watched, because these socialist are attacking the Constitution directly and knowingly, and the Constitution must prevail. I see this case going all the way to the Supreme Court, and let's pray that they are bold and smart enough to preserve the Constitution, not rely on 'foreign' law or completely ignore the Constitution, as written, and make their own law as we see in the liberal judicial system.


Mr Minority