Obama Opposes Gun Rights

Barack Obama has stated repeatedly during this presidential campaign his support for the Second Amendment Rights of Americans, but his past record and his use of clever, but non-specific terminology, say otherwise. When he talks about “common sense” gun laws he means things like required trigger locks on all guns in the home, which would make those guns mostly useless if actually needed for defense. The following are some of the other “common sense” measures he has supported:
• Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03
• Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
Politico, 03/31/08.
• Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04
• Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99
• Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05 •
Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04
(NRA-ILA)



Naturally, Obama supporters will call the video above ridiculous "scare tactics." Look at Obama's record and decide for yourself if you, a gun owner and advocate of the right of self-defense, have a reason to be concerned about what an Obama administration will mean to us. Consider also the likelihood that Obama will have a Congress lead by Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank and many other notorious gun-grabbers. The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right of ultimate authority over government, by threat of armed revolt if they should seek to usurp authority not granted by the Constitution. Obama, supported by George Soros, will seek to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights. He may do it incrementally with "common sense" restrictions, but the goal is a disarmed citizenry with all power centralized in Washington.

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate

Last update: 1:06 a.m. EDT Oct. 15, 2008
CHICAGO, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:
Fellow Sportsman,
Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.
I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama.
Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.
Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.
Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?
And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.
Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.
Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?
By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.
In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him.
That's the Barack Obama I know.
The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.
WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org
SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association
http://www.isra.org

11-Year-Old Girl Field Strips and Reassembles Assault Rifle

I have field stripped and reassembled an M-16 far more times than I could possibly count...even if I wanted to.

And this 11-year old little lady is pretty good! There are several little pieces to the bolt assembly that add to the time and complexity.

I'd take her on patrol with my fire team (with parental permission, of course).

Thanks to Dr. Theo for sending it to me.

The Verdict: Guns Save Lives

With judicial review of the Washington D.C. gun ban pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, amicus briefs are being submitted to illustrate that not only is the ban unconstitutional, it's simply a bad idea. (Ignoring for a moment the ultimate reason for the Second Amendment: defense against an oppressive government, whether foreign or domestic).

WorldNetDaily features an article highlighting a number of cases that demonstrate how armed citizens can reduce crime without firing a shot.

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.

Consider the effect that publicity for a firearms safety course had in Florida:

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.

Interesting that crime dropped without a shot being fired. This reveals a truth, also applicable in national defense, that liberals either can't or won't understand.

Someone who is armed and capable of defending themselves will likely never have to defend themselves because potential aggressors will likely avoid them, instead seeking the easy prey.

Prior to World War II, Adolf Hitler saw that the rest of Europe and America was weak, mostly disarmed and uninclined to counter his aggression. So he ended up taking almost all of Europe.

The Soviets, through much of the Cold War, saw while the West had at least learned enough not to disarm completely in the face of an aggressor, they lacked the spine to stop indirect Soviet aggression. Thus country after country in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and South America began falling to Soviet-backed communist incursions. That is, until Ronald Reagan came on scene, and by the end of this two terms as president, collapse of the Soviet edifice was imminent--and did collapse within two more years.

My ten-year-old daughter has been taking Ju-Jitsu for about a year, and has just earned her orange belt in this martial art. She loves it and we plan to encourage her all the way to black belt, if she so desires. In a few short years, I will teach her firearms safety and how to fire accurately (I was certified "marksman" on several weapons in the military). And I will teach her to, as we joked when I was in law enforcement, "aim center-mass to maim." My daughter will not be a soft target.

The lessons of history, both foreign and domestic, should teach us the value of strength and self defense. If they do not, then we do not deserve to be free--and we won't be.

The Illinois Mystery of Murder & Suicide

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Thursday, February 14th, forever changed many lives as a lone gunman, Steven Kazmierczak, stepped onto the stage in that lecture hall on Northern Illinois University campus and opened fire, snuffing out six young lives and injuring many more, before taking his own life. What was behind the mass murder and suicide? It is the question repeatedly asked throughout the media, law enforcement and public. The answer is silence.

No one knows what Steven Kazmierczak was thinking, but that hasn't prevented speculation that he may have been planning the attack for some time. The reasoning? He began buying weapons sometime ago. Perhaps he began buying them to be prepared for the massacre? If that is the case, why didn't he simply carry out the plan several weapons ago? Just as fair a speculation -- perhaps there was no intent of harming anyone when the young man made the purchases.

Anti-gun fanatics are prone to seize these horrendous situations as support for their cause. If we removed guns from the hands of people, then this situation would never have happened. Do they really believe that? Can they say that and keep a straight face?

People who are bent on killing others will find a way. And finding a gun isn't difficult at all, if one isn't particular about whether the purchase is legal or not. Nor is it difficult to find other methods, if the intent is there. So are we going to restrict, or withhold, anything and everything that might possibly be utilized to take the lives of others? That would be an enormous list. Obviously, it would be impossible to strip the world of all the potential dangers, even if one was possessed with the determination to do so.

The weapon of choice is, more often than not, secondary in the scheme of things. It is only a dangerous weapon when in the hands of the wrong person(s) at the wrong time. Wouldn't this then suggest that focusing so intensely on the weapon issues is actually taking away from where true focus should be? What happened to the Steven Kazmierczak everyone knew? What was behind his decision to kill others and himself? Were there any signs? Should someone have known? Is there something we are failing to see? Is there something we are failing to do? Why are so many of our young pursuing such a violent path of destruction that destroys so many lives? Why? What has gone wrong? Can we stop it?

There was a time that young people were frequently seen with weapons. A time when teens (and even pre-teens) would hunt on a regular basis and keep their weapons close. A time when, in some areas, it was the norm to see a truck being driven by a teen with a shotgun or rifle or both resting in the gun rack in the back window. A time when wearing a hunting knife wasn't given a second thought. A time when the violent crimes were far less than now. How is that possible?

Teens had weapons readily available, but incidents of them using them were, to modern ways of thinking, incongruently rare. Now, with considerably more restrictions in place, teens are by far more involved in violent crimes. Rather than an old fashion fist fight to settle a disagreement, today's disagreements (real or imagined) often involve weapons being pulled and the participants playing for keeps. The value of life has been on the fast track to meaningless for some time. Now it is becoming too obvious to ignore or play off. It is everywhere we turn. There is no place safe from the explosions waiting to happen; not until we identify and deal with the actual problems that are setting our young people off into uncontrollable and deadly behavior.

The Illinois mystery of murder and suicide may not be solved for a very long time to come, if ever. Wherever the major clues to the truth rest, I'm betting they are not necessarily in the purchase of weapons, whether the weapons were bought legally, whether the laws should be changed and things such as that. I'm betting that the answers to why there are six people from Northern Illinois University campus dead, rests in another direction. A direction that many do not want to look in.

As the parents began to lose the right to raise their children as they saw fit, and children were given more and more freedom to do whatever felt good to them, while being held to little or no accountability for inappropriate behavior, so have many of the children lost their sense of direction and self-value. And as seems to be the norm--as the outside forces gained more and more control--self-control became optional, and some have wandered aimlessly into a world of destruction they had no ability to avoid.


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Liberals Lacking Logic

You know, there's probably only one thing that bothers me more than when liberals undermine values and try to steer people away from following a good moral conscience: when they misrepresent the truth in pursuit of that objective.

The cartoonist blog SouthDaCola features a post today which combines three images. The first is an image of someone sending a text message which says "scott u r fat" and below it says "mean spirited text messages" and a box marked "X" ILLEGAL. The second is an image of a birth control pill dispenser which says below it "dispensing birth control" marked "X" ILLEGAL. The third shows someone with an automatic weapon hanging around their shoulder from a strap and below it says "gun-toting college students" with "X" marked LEGAL.

The blog post comments say

I guess most of South Dakotans are wacked out religious right neo-cons that hate the first amendment, healthcare privacy, and love violence.

(I love how liberals throw around that "neo-con" term when they're talking about something that really gets them in a tiff.)

The three items obviously reference three matters being considered by the South Dakota Legislature.

The first is HB 1313 which would make it illegal to send text or email messages that , intimidate, threaten, harass or annoy such person by using obscene or lewd language or by suggesting a lewd or lascivious act, threaten to inflict physical harm or injury to any person or property, extort money or other things of value. This adds to SDCL 49-31-31 which already makes it illegal to use a telephone to do such things.

The second refers to HB 164 which was intended to override the right of pharmacists to not sell drugs that violate their conscience. That bill failed today.

The third refers to HB 1261 which would protect the Second Amendment right of college students to possess firearms on campus. This bill comes on the heels of a legislative effort to take that right away from them.

I think it's a valid point with which few would disagree that, just as telephone harassment is illegal, other forms of electronic harassment should be illegal. Since when has the First Amendment ever guaranteed the right to threaten or harass someone? I don't see a problem with this bill.

I also think it's a valid point, which some--especially those who are inherently afraid of guns--would disagree with, that the Second Amendment isn't suspended when you live on a college campus. And since when has the right to keep and bear arms equaled a love for violence (hint: they're often very useful in deterring and quelling violence against people)? And another valid point is that outlawing weapons on campus isn't going to stop a Virginia Tech-style gunman from slaughtering people anyway.

What I find puzzling/ disingenuous/ deceptive/ dishonest/ incorrect/ false is that middle part that says "dispensing birth control X illegal." Who made it illegal? Where is that law? Where is that bill? And if healthcare is so private that a pharmacist shouldn't be allowed to exercise his or her conscience in considering the sale of a product, maybe it's too private to go to the pharmacist in the first place; after all, you're already involving him by asking him for the product in the first place.

I know liberals are pretty slow sometimes, but is it really that tough to discern the difference between the moral decision made by a professional in the sale of a product they consider harmful, and a law prohibiting the sale of a product?

Since when has the decision of a business person been the same thing as a law passed by elected representatives? Though I suppose it follows if the liberals who wrote SB 164 can't figure out that pharmacists aren't "government entities" who carry out "government intrusions," then there might be other liberals who can't grasp the difference between a law and an individual decision.

You don't have to agree or disagree with these bills, but has analytical thought and logic fallen to such a low that someone actually sees a wrongful inconsistency between these three bills?

Campus Gun Rights Bill Passes SD House

The South Dakota House of Representatives passed HB 1261 yesterday, affirming the right of college students to possess firearms on campus. The bill passed 63-3.

Now let's hope it makes it through the South Dakota Senate.

From the Argus Leader, legislative debate included some salient testimony on why the right to bear arms is important, especially in an increasingly lawless culture.

"The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said Rep. Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland, the main sponsor of the bill.

Brunner said he has two daughters in college, and one who just turned 18 wants a permit to carry a concealed weapon because she has to walk a half mile to her dormitory after parking her car. If criminals know law-abiding citizens might be armed, they will be less likely to consider attacking someone, he said.

Brunner said most mass shootings in recent years have occurred in areas where guns are prohibited. Murderers, such as the disturbed student at Virginia Tech last year, were able to kill many people because no one else was armed, he said.

However, House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center said the bill does not encourage students to carry guns. It merely confirms that students have the same constitutional rights as anyone else to bear arms, he said.

Rep. Manny Steele, R-Sioux Falls, said the guard who shot and wounded a gunman at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December helped save lives.

Knowing that potential targets might be armed could dissuade a violent person from initiating a shooting. And even if it doesn't, if there are armed citizens nearby, they have the tool to do what must be done to cut short the harm a gunman might otherwise do.

Unarmed citizens are an invitation to the criminal element.

Bill Guaranteeing Right to Firearms on Campus Gets Support

From the Rapid City Journal, the House State Affairs committee today voted to support a law that would guarantee the right to carry firearms on college campuses:

The State Affairs Committee voted unanimously to pass HB 1261, which would guarantee people the right to carry or possess firearms on college campuses. The schools also would be prevented from expelling students or firing employees for having a gun on campus.

The panel later voted unanimously to kill a competing measure, sponsored by the Board of Regents, which sought to ban guns on campus.

When are politicians going to get it: criminals don't obey laws.

Yeah, you could prosecute a gunman for illegal possession of a firearm on campus after he'd slaughtered several people...but by that time, such a charge would be pretty paltry next to the multiple charges of murder.

Do you think if they'd had a law like HB 1086, banning guns on campus, at Virginia Tech, that would have stopped the gunman? Do lawmakers imagine the gunman might have seen a sign, or remembered the law, and said, "Darn it! I wanted to slaughter some innocent people on campus today, but I can't bring my gun!"

But armed and law-abiding citizens can stop gunmen, as a security guard in Colorado proved recently.

There are always going to be evil people, until God creates a new heaven and a new earth. In the meantime, innocent, law-abiding citizens should have a means of defending themselves from evil. A lot of people can be killed before a 911 call can be responded to.

We have some good legislators in South Dakota, but I wish more of them would THINK before submitting bills.

Huckabee Speaks at Liberal Groups

OneNewsNow reports that the Family Research Council is criticizing Mike Huckabee for speaking at and receiving speaker's fees form some liberal organizations:

The Politico reports that last year the former Arkansas governor accepted $35,000 in speaking fees from Novo Nordisk, a biomedical firm involved in human embryonic stem-cell research. In August, OneNewsNow reported that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney actually holds stock in the drug-maker. Huckabee also accepted speaking fees from a non-profit group working to expand access to the "morning-after pill," and a group pushing to study whether tightening gun control laws will reduce violence.

Do conservatives typically speak at organizations which promote embryonic stem cell research, morning-after pills and gun control groups?

US Has Most Heavily Armed Citizens

Let freedom ring, baby!

From 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.

Now if we just had the morality that we once did to ensure they were used legitimately all the time.

BBC Clueless on Gun Control

The Media Research Center highlights BBC coverage of the Virginia Tech murders. Of course, the liberal BBC puts the gun control spin on it.

"The question all around the world, when an incident, a terrible incident like this happens is how many shootings does it take before America has a serious discussion about gun control?"

Meanwhile, the BBC ignores the real problem: evil.

When I lived in England for three years, I was struck (until I got used to it) by news reports of murders when I would listen to the radio there. It was one of those things that would just slap you in the face after listening to it for a little bit.

After a couple of weeks, I noticed that almost every single news report contained multiple reports of someone slashed to death here, stabbed to death there, hacked to death somewhere else. Yes, Britain had gun control...but the British people were slicing and stabbing each other to death like crazy with the knives still available to them. Oh, and let's not forget the many ones who were strangled and even a few garroted. I remember being amazed at all the knifing and strangling going on in this realm of no-guns.

Guns make killing a little easier, but if someone wants to murder, they'll find a way. The real problem isn't guns; the real problem is the evil in men's hearts.

And the only thing that can truly fix that is the man they left out of the Virginia Tech memorial yesterday: Jesus the Messiah.

More Guns=Less Slaughter?

In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech bloodbath yesterday, some are bemoaning the fact that we don't have more gun control laws, while others say that if more responsible people were armed, this slaughter could have been ended quickly.

Also, this morning Central High School in Rapid City was put in lockdown after it was reported that someone had a gun on campus.

Interestingly, most people in a Gallup Poll says gun violence is a result of the way parents raise their children (45%) with access to guns coming in at 21%. It seems most people equate much of the violence in our society to parenting.

So what's the answer? Could greater access to handguns by responsible people have curtailed this horrible crime? Are more restrictions the answer? Or is (shudder to think) teaching our children values, particularly the value of human life, the answer?