guncontrol (9)

The AR15 Is Not An Assault Weapon

The AR15 is Not an Assault Weapon


When you consider the Oklahoma office worker whose head was hacked off with a knife, the New York cops attacked with an axe, and the Paris assault with a knife, it begins to dawn on one that assault is a behavior and not a weapon. Ever since Cain slew Able, it has been possible to kill people without using an AR15.

I once saw a movie depicting a time and place and place where only police and the military had guns. It was called Schindler’s List. Only the Nazis had guns. One wonders hoe history would have been different had Germany had a Second Amendment and every Stormtrooper knocking on the door at midnight had met a Jew with a gun. ....

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 

Read more…

Obama Tells a Rape Victim a Gun Won't Protect Her

Liberals like to talk about women’s rights but among those rights is, or should be, the second right enshrined in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights -- the right to keep and bear arms to protect one’s self. A woman’s body is her own, liberals tell us, and she has the right to choose to have an abortion. But the same liberals would deny women like Kimberly Corban the right to defend her body, and her children, with a firearm against the predators who lurk among us.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more…

ObamaCare does not Trump the Second Amendment

Shredding the right to keep and bear arms has long been a goal of President Obama, the self-professed constitutional law professor who has long regarded the Constitution as an impediment to advancing his progressive agenda and acquiring as much federal power as possible. The rules he has announced are touted as “sensible gun restriction” are in fact a shameless gun grab that violate the Constitution and patient-doctor confidentiality.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more…

Hillary vs, the 2nd Amendment

Hillary vs. the 2nd Amendment

Hillary Clinton, who served an administration that ran thousands of guns to Mexican drug lords under Operation Fast and Furious, is now fast and furiously trying to resurrect a failing campaign by taking aim at so-called gun rights “extremists”.

In the wake of the shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, Mrs. Clinton advocated in New Hampshire for a new gun group for “responsible gun owners” apart from the National Rifle Association, which she considers extremist, even though no NRA member has ever been involved in a mass shooting:

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more…

Jeb Bush vs. 2nd Amendment

Jeb Bush vs. the 2nd Amendment

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is not a political amateur and has faced questions from many prominent talking heads in the media. Yet in the 2016 he has made multiple gaffes indicating he still might not be ready for prime time, the latest being a question of whether gun ownership is a right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more…

Mental Health and the 2nd Amendment

Despite the undeniable mental issues affecting black, gay Democrat Vester Flanagan, who was not sporting a Confederate flag before he shot and killed his two former KDBJ coworkers, reporter Alison Parker and photojournalist Adam Ward, the fact is that he passed a background check and legally possessed the Glock handgun he used. As much as we all want to prevent the mentally unstable from possessing firearms, the fact is that there was nothing in Flanagan’s background to prevent him from legally owning a firearm.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more…

4063991281?profile=originalDems Use Ebola To Push For Anti-Gun Surgeon General

Tue, Oct 21 2014 00:00:00 E A12_ISSUES

Read more…


Prayer of a Liberal!

Oh, bama,

Lord of ALL knowledge.
By the Power of Gore, I thank you.

Take our No Good Insurance, our Worthless Doctors, and anything else you can get your eternally growing

Arms around.

 We know you Hear all (NSA), see all (SPY satellites) and are In Control of every aspect of our seemingly inexhaustible Taxable incomes.

Import more votes by allowing the neighbors, we love, to have ALL of our belongings.

You know what’s best for them too.

Let us not put anything foul into our mouths, (like good and real food)  not approved and regulated by your Divine Government.

Take away the weapons of defense and give them to our enemies, for you say they are now our allies.

And We know that you know ALL.
We give Thanks for your Blessings of Global Warming, that have Kept us all from Freezing to Death on this 15th year or cooler (even record LOW) Temperatures.
If not for Your Wonderful insight into what is best for everyone and everything the Arctic and Antarctic Ice would surely have met up in Florida or Maybe Cuba by now.
Bless us even more with TOTAL control of Every Aspect of our Lowly existence.

Sterilize all who might even think of opposing you.
For you know we are totally ignorant of anything good.

Praise your Unholy Name. Amoon.

Read more…


No rest for the weary. Or those thinking they will get a good night's rest. Like me.

I just had tocheck my email before turning in. "Face-palm", "For the Love Of" "Serenity Now" and all that jazz.

First, if you do not have this information saved, written down, printed out, etc, please do it now. You will want to be making some phone calls first thing tomorrow.

Let's begin with the Senate Version of CISPA and a cute little gun-control amendment being attached to it:

Congress threw us peasants a bone when PIPA and SOPA were stopped. It re-emerged with a news name, the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act" (CISPA). The House passed their version of CISPA back in April (H.R. 3523), 248 - 158. You can find out how your Representative voted here(which should be helpful to know in the upcoming Primary).


Now the Senate version, S3414 is being fast-tracked [Side Note: How about a bill to not allow any legislation to be passed during a Lame Duck Session. Fast track that one!]. Cloture passed for the bill on last Thursday by a vote of 84-11. I think many have beaten a dead horse about why this so-called "security" bill is a huge mistake, and yet another way to indiscriminately invade your privacy no matter what security measures you have taken. By how much, no one really knows but a select few. Maybe the bill has to be passed to know what is in it. Read this for opines by Heritage Foundation regarding the bill:
"Senate Cybersecurity Bill Gets Worse the More You Read It." Even if a miracle happened, and a couple of 'compromises' were added to it (the Franken and Wyden Amendments*, it is still a grab bag of items stripping away privacy rights, rather than actually successfully protecting United State's infrastructure from cyber threats. Before moving on, if you have a Twitter account, go here ==> "Stop Cyber Spying." It is a quick way to tweet your respective Senators that you oppose S 3414.


But how do you make a bad bill even worse? By having "well meaning liberals, democrats and progressives" in the Senate add an amendment in order to protect us from ourselves for we do not know what we do. Amendment S.A. 2575, the latest attack on our Second Amendment Rights (whoops - 'Gun Control') is sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition. Obviously, this add-on is to take advantage of the recent horrific murders in Colorado as a way to further the gun-control agenda.


If the sponsors of this bill happen to know the following fact, they are assuming no one else does or care (unless you are one of those right-wingers 'clinging to your guns and religion!): The standard capacity for rifle magazines is thirty rounds, not ten.Furthermore, what is to prevent someone buying 10 round magazines and and practice reloading/tape two magazines together? Researching a little bit more, I discovered what is known as a "CA Legal 30-round magazine" which actually only holds a 10-round, but it can be easily converted to its original capacity. If an insane person (like the Colorado murderer) was living in California and planning on a mass murder, he could just modify it. Do we really think that any law would stop him?


Are we supposed to be gullible enough to assume creating more laws actually force criminals to finally turn over a new leaf? When you contact your Congresspersons, also point out:

  • Mexico is among the top countries to that have the strictest gun control laws ~ for several years now! There have been 55,000 gun related homicides in Mexico over the last five years. In comparison, 58,000 American died during the entire Vietnam War that was waged with U.S. combat troops from 1961 until 1975.
  • Within the United States, Chicago and Washington D.C. have the strictest gun laws. They do not allow any form of handgun carry. Including murder with firearms, the violent crime rate is among the highest in our country.
  • In Chicago, twice as many people were murdered with firearms so far this month in Chicago than were murdered in the Aurora theater on July 20. But the Mayor is more concerned about not allowing a non-discriminating privately owned business that would bring in more jobs to the city whose CEO's personal opinions are in opposition to gay marriage. Go figure.

The National Research Council of the National Academies released a study with the aim of finding whether a causal relationship existed between homicide and gun ownership. It didn’t find one, and it said that the available research itself was lacking. "In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide." In other words, none of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide.


United States, on a National level, the overall number of violent crimes have decreased even though we have/are going through the worse recession in history. States with liberalized gun laws have followed the national trend of decline, and there are others whose crime level has not changed. Then there are the states with restrictive gun laws where crime has either risen or leveled off, but then are others where crime has also declined.

If gun-control advocates justify their infringement on our Civil Rights - rights that are not subject to a majority vote, mind you - is crime control, there is no factual support for their reasons to reduce the power of or eliminate the Second Amendment, whose purpose is to protect our First Amendment. Gun control efforts hasn't been attributable to any meaningful decline.


So.....Gun control does not necessarily beget crime control. None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide. And drug users, criminals and other "undesirable types" don't give damn about statistics.

*The Franken Amendment removes Section 701 from the S 3414. The section would provide companies with the explicit right to monitor private user communications and engage in countermeasures. The Wyden Amendmentrequires law enforcement officials to procure a warrant before obtaining location data from a person's cell phone, laptop or other gadgets.



Next Stop - Call the Senators Again About the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

"Talk to the hand 'cos the ear ain't listening " That's the impression I am getting from some of the Senators in the Foreign Relations Committee.
What I really think it means is, "I am enjoying my ignorance. Please do not ruin it by discussing facts or logic with me."


This Treaty is an affront to the basic rights of parents - see here and here. Last Thursday (July 26th), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted by a 13-6 margin to send the CRPD to the full Senate.

From Michael Ramey, Director of Communications & Research at opposes this treaty because it poses a threat to the traditional role of parents in the upbringing of their children with special needs, and because it sets the dangerous precedent of expressing social, economic, and cultural entitlements as legal rights and obligations.

Senators who stood with us to oppose ratificationof this treaty include: Senator Corker of Tennessee, Senator Risch of Idaho, Senator Lee of Utah, Senator Rubio of Florida, Senator DeMint of South Carolina, and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma.

All ten Democrats and three Republican senators – Senators Richard Lugar (IN), John Barrasso (WY), and Johnny Isakson (GA) – voted in favorof the treaty.

Please Call Again

In light of this morning’s hearing, it is time to call your senators again. Even if you just called them yesterday, our effort starts over right now. Yesterday’s call was about the hearing; today’s call is about the floor vote.

In your own words, please give your senators the following message:
“I oppose ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. If our Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations are not air tight, the language of this treaty will severely damage the traditional role of parents with disabled children in making important decisions for their children. If they are not air tight, we could be obligating ourselves to sweeping changes in U.S. law to meet the demands of this treaty.
“And if our Reservations are air tight, and our nation takes on no new obligations under this treaty, then it makes no sense to adopt it. Our ratification will not make it any more binding on other countries, and it will not change the quality of the example we already set by domestic law. We are already leading the world. We do not need to spend the money every 4 years to ask for the U.N.’s opinion on how we are doing.
“I sincerely urge my Senator to oppose ratifying this treaty. The potential unintended consequences are too great a risk for a mere symbolic gesture.”

  • Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senator by name; or
  • Visit and click on your state. Your Senators’ D.C. phone numbers are listed at the bottom of your state’s page.

(If your senator voted to oppose CRPD, do not call their office – but send them an email thanking them for their position.)

Several senators clearly want the CRPD to pass. Right now only a few are standing up for the rights of parents by actively opposing it. But based on today’s hearing and the word from the Hill, there are still many senators undecided on this vote. So thank you for taking the time to call. Your voice can make a tremendous difference in whether or not this treaty gets the two-thirds vote required for ratification. We only need 34 “no” votes to stop it. So please call your senators today.

This image is not really relative to the post ~ I just really liked the image.
I want to try this with my dollar bill.

Read more…