I am impressed with the President's speech and the health care reform is the key to our future. Health care reform is the key to our nation’s prosperity. This is not the time to ask, “Where the funds will come from”; this question should have been asked before the unjust and unnecessary war. Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people and the President’s health care reform is for the people and it has been the people’s agenda all along. Enough is enough for people whom oppose it and enough of their arrogance. I support the health care reform all the way and determine to make it a reality. God bless our nation.
Attention members!
Me and many other liberal Democrat gun owners are very opposed to President Obama's choice in picking an anti-gun radical to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.
During the presidential campaign, Obama went to great lengths to convince us that he was a strong defender of the Second Amendment. He disowned or denied a long list of anti-gun positions and told us time and time again to trust him, that he really did believe the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
Since that is true, the news that Sotomayor is anti-gun must be brought to his attention, as well as your Senators! Our civil rights are in jeopardy.
Obama's pick is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is currently on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District. There she has racked up an anti-Second Amendment record and has displayed contempt for the rule of law under the Constitution. The Heller decision put the Supreme Court in support of the Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power (as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into counter-attack mode against the Heller decision. Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. As she and her cohorts claimed, the Supreme Court has not yet incorporated the states under the Second Amendment. Until then, she believes, the Second only applies to the District of Columbia. This is pure judicial arrogance -- something Sotomayor relishes (as long as she is one of the ruling judges). In fact, protection of the right to keep and bear arms was a major objective for enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, as recently freed slaves were being disarmed and terrorized in their neighborhoods. But Sotomayor disdains this important right of individuals, as indicated by an earlier opinion from 2004. In United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she stated that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s.In her senior thesis at Princeton University, she wrote that America has a"deadly obsession" with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership. Sotomayor's Second Amendment views go hand in hand with her politically correct views on the law and the role of judges. In a speech given at Duke University in 2005, she made it abundantly clear that judges are involved in making policy. Realizing that this did not sound very judicial (even though most judges act on this basis), Sotomayor tried to laugh off her brazen admission: "I know this is on tape and I should never say that, [audience laughing], because we don't make law -- I know. Um, okay. I know, I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it." The audience continued to laugh. They got the joke. But Sotomayor's joke will be on us and our liberties if she gets confirmed to the Supreme Court. And that is why we need to start contacting our Senators early and often, urging them to vote against this dangerous nomination. ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here are two major factors facing Pakistan; one is military and other is few old political families, whom don’t want to give up their crown. It is mistake to think that Pakistan may be run effectively by the old politicians only. But people of Pakistan are fed up with the business as usual, corrupt military and the politicians. Pakistan has huge pool of young educated people whom are not given any opportunity to participate in the politics and the government. And it only natural, when all else is failed, people are forced into depending and relying on extremist and fundamentalist for the better or worst outcome. Peace and democracy may be achieved by stable elected government only and not declaring Marshal-law. Pakistan will run well, if only, military play the role to defend the country and its boarders and not to intervene inside politics. It will best if the Military is under the Secretary of Defense like here in the USA and not be above the Pakistan’s government or completely independent. Other idea is to spend all or any overseas funds given to the government of Pakistan or military should be spent to eliminate poverty and increase education rather than spend on wars and killing people. There must be independent panel from the USA and not be associated with the Pakistan’s inner or outer circle, to oversea the funds being invested properly for the welfare of people, to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and build industries to create jobs in Pakistan not being stolen by the government officials and politicians. Only, then people of Pakistan will realize us as friends and not foes.
FYI:
By John R. Lott, Jr. Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland, Author, “Freedomnomics”
Time after time multiple- victim public shootings occur in “gun free zones” — public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The horrible attack today in Binghamton, New York is no different. Every multiple-victim public shooting that I have studied, where more than three people have been killed, has taken place where guns are banned.
You would think that it would be an important part of the news stories for a simple reason: Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks. Extensive discussions of these attacks can be found here and here. We want to keep people safe, but the problem is that it is the law-abiding good citizens, not the criminals, who obey these laws. We end up disarming the potential victims and not the criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal.
At some point, you would think the media would notice that something is going on here, that these murderers aren’t just picking their targets at random. And this pattern isn’t really too surprising. Most people understand that guns deter criminals.
If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, “This home is a gun-free zone”? But that is what all these places did.
Even when attacks occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun.
For years I would tell news people about the fact that every single multiple victim public shooting in the US involving more than three people killed took place in one of these gun-free zones. The response was they might include this information as part of the story if I could get it to them fast enough so that it could be included as part of the news story. But when I started to do that I was told that it would be editorializing to include that information. My response has been that if news stories can contain long (often inaccurate) discussions of the type of gun used in the crime, why isn’t it also newsworthy to note one common characteristic that occurs in attack after attack?
When will this simple fact about gun-free zones become part of the news coverage itself? How different would the political debate about guns be if even once in a while a news story mentioned that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun free zone?
John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of Freedomnomics.
For more details, or to join our group in organzed efforts here at my.barackobama.com, please see our previous Blog posts here at NRA Members and Gun Owners for Obama.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM NRA CHIEF LOBBYIST CHRIS W. COX ON ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER'S RECENT REMARKS SUPPORTING REINSTATEMENT OF THE FAILED 1994 GUN AND MAGAZINE BAN Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Today in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, 65 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), expressed their opposition to the reinstatement of the failed 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. These congressmen cited numerous studies that proved the 1994 ban was ineffective, and they strongly urged Attorney General Holder to stop his effort and instead focus on the enforcement of existing gun laws. NRA would like to thank Congressman Ross for his leadership on this effort. We will continue to work with Members of Congress from both parties on this important issue. View the letter here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf
Eric Holder, Obama's selection for Attorney General has recently said that he wants a new gun ban on commonly owned rifles and shotguns, which he misleadingly labels "assault weapons".
Yet Obama has been outspoken about his support for gun rights. I hope Obama talks to Holder and changes his mind. The ban that Holder wants is a gun owner’s worst nightmare, and if it passed Obama would be forced to Veto it.
See the Obama video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBHkMADXnOw
"I believe in the Second Amendment, I believe in the people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."
-- Barack Obama,
September 2008
Passing this on for our Illinois activists. Make your voice heard tomorrow, attend if you can make it!
Here's a youtube video from last year's event:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bwpTr3fZqU
SPRINGFIELD, Ill., March 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):Final preparations are underway for what might be the largest firearm rights rally ever held in the Midwest. On Wednesday, March 11th, thousands of law-abiding firearm owners from across Illinois will converge on the Illinois Capitol to let their voices be heard on one of the most contentious issues of the day. Highlights of the Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day (IGOLD) will include a mass teach-in followed by a march on the Capitol. Once at the Capitol, participants will be going from office to office, lobbying legislators to support the state's law-abiding firearm owners when hostile bills come to the floor. The day will close with an evening reception and networking session."This year's IGOLD event comes at a critical time for law-abiding firearm owners," commented ISRA Executive Director, Richard Pearson. "Last June, we saw the U.S. Supreme Court affirm that private firearm ownership is a constitutionally-protected right. Despite that ruling, we recently heard the Obama administration express its intention to ban most of the hunting and target rifles available on the market today. Closer to home, the Illinois General Assembly will soon vote on a package of bills designed to hobble hunters and sportsmen with punitive taxes and burdensome red tape. Interestingly, the package also includes a bill that would make previously-convicted felons immune from prosecution for carrying illegal weapons. Something is very wrong with this picture. The intent of IGOLD is to get the legislature refocused on fighting crime without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding.""The afternoon lobbying sessions are the heart and soul of IGOLD," continued Pearson. "The purpose of the lobbying effort is three-fold. First and foremost, we will be expressing our thanks and support to those legislators who have battled courageously to preserve and protect the rights of law-abiding firearm owners. Likewise, legislators who have opposed us will be rebuked, politely, for losing sight of the fact that their oaths of office pledged to uphold the entire Constitution -- not just those sections endorsed by the fifth floor of Chicago City Hall. IGOLD participants will also visit those legislators in the growing ranks of fence-sitters. To them, our advice will be to honor our nation's traditional respect for individual rights while ignoring the bullying tactics of the Daley administration.""All in all, we expect this to be a successful event," concluded Pearson. "There's a wellspring of enthusiasm behind this year's IGOLD. Law-abiding gun owners are maturing in their role as agents of change. Change will come, and the cause of freedom shall prevail."IGOLD events kick off at 10:30 AM on March 11th with a press conference in the Capitol's Blue Room. At 11:00 AM, IGOLD participants will gather at the Prairie Capitol Convention Center for a teach-in and legislative briefing. The march on the Capitol will commence at about 1:30 PM after which participants will begin attending committee hearings and visiting legislators' offices. IGOLD participants will return to the Prairie Capitol Convention Center for a 4:00 PM reception. Full details may be obtained by calling the ISRA office at (815) 635-3198 or visiting the IGOLD web site at http://igold.isra.org.The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Since 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association
Yet another reason to celebrate the protection of our civil rights this week under a stated gun-friendly president:
Fairfax, Va. - Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied consideration of New York City and Washington, D.C. lawsuits, New York v. Beretta and Lawson v. Beretta, respectively, that tried to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of criminals. The Court 's order leaves standing a pair of decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and District of Columbia Court of Appeals, both of which found that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, prevents these types of lawsuits against lawful firearms manufacturers and dealers. "Big city mayors conceived these lawsuits to try and litigate American gun manufacturers - who President Roosevelt referred to as "the arsenal of democracy" - out of business," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "NRA has always believed the courts would agree with Congress that the PLCAA rightfully stops these reckless and politically motivated lawsuits." In 2000, New York City, Washington, D.C. and several individual plaintiffs sued gun manufacturers, based on the idea that although they manufactured a legal product, forcing them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees just to prove their innocence in court would drive them into bankruptcy. In addition to being based on a bogus legal theory, these lawsuits endangered American armed forces and law enforcement. During congressional debate over the PLCAA, the Department of Defense agreed with the NRA that bankrupting U.S. gun makers and making us dependent on foreign countries like France, Russia or China for small arms is a threat to America's domestic and international security. "We are pleased that the courts have recognized the misguided intent of these lawsuits," concluded Cox. " America's law-abiding firearms manufacturers must be protected from reckless suits that have no legal merit." http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12204
Our Attorney General Eric Holder said today that he wants to work toward banning commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and other arms!
Hate to say "I told you so", but I knew Holder was a terrible choice for Attorney General. I knew Holder wasn't going to side with Obama's stated pro-gun position.
Holder wants to reinstate the so-called "assault weapons" ban that expired in 2004. Holder claims that Obama wants this change, but he can't be serious. Obama campaigned as a friend to gun owners, saying we had "nothing to fear". Well, Mr. Holder must not realize that the assault weapon ban is one of the items that tops the list of laws that worry law abiding gun owners.
We need to organize and lobby the Obama administration to reject Eric Holder's opinion and stay true to their campaign promise. Our freedom depends on it.
Get Educated, watch this YouTube video on so-called "assault weapons":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
Holder article link:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
This story is so sad. A 15 minute 911 tape recorded the animal's owner, Sandy Herold, begging "Send police with guns!""Hurry, please! He ripped her face off," "He's eating her!" the ape's frantic owner, Sandy Herold, 70, is heard telling the dispatcher on the tapes released Tuesday night.
It's sad first of all that Sandy would own such a dangerous animal, and secondly it's too bad she didn't own a gun. She wouldn't have had to wait helpless on the phone while her friend was being mauled by her deadly pet. Police are around to fill out paperwork after a crime has been commited and have no legal obligation to protect us from harm (as courts have well defined).
Congrats to Obama today, who is sticking to his pledge to be a friend to gun-owners and to protect our civil rights. That includes the 2nd amendment which protects our right to keep and bear arms.
The anti-constitutional people over at the Brady Campaign have filed a lawsuit seeking to ban law abiding citizens from being able to carry a concealed handgun within a national park for self defense against bears or criminals. They want to ban our right in parks, even when the state which hosts the park allows its citizens to do so legally (48 or 50 states have such a provision), thus they would be overruling state law.
The Obama administration has responded that they reject the arguments in the lawsuit and will fight it.
Congrats to Obama for not picking-and-choosing which civil rights he will stand up for! :)
There is more unconstitutional wackiness coming out of Illinois these days, eroding our civil rights. (at least it's a proposed state law for now)
Kenneth Dunkin, a member of the Illinois House of Representatives, has introduced HB0687 the “Firearm Owners ID-Insurance” bill. The bill states “that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.” A million dollar policy for all gun owners! Can you imagine the premium on such an insurance policy? If the firearm owner cannot afford the insurance or decides that it is simply crazy and also unconstitutional and refuses to participate, “the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card,” thus making the firearm illegal and the owner a criminal. This is ridiculous, in the event of a mishap with a firearm; there are already many legal avenues available for people to sue for damages.
Maybe Dunkin would also like to put premiums on other rights guaranteed by our Constitution. How about one on the 1st amendment? Every time the republicans speak and insult my intelligence, I think their insurance should cover me up to $1,000.
These politicians take an oath of office to uphold the constitution, but they selectively forget parts of it. Obama who has been outspoken as a friend to gun owners, should send Dunkin a message to stop embarrassing himself.
FYI, this should be of great interest to our pro-Obama, pro-Gun Democrat members. Obama has been outspoken as a friend to gun owners, so he should welcome this assembly.
For more details, please see http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/
I'm passing this story on from http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88472 A coalition is being assembled to march on Washington to deliver to Congress, the president and even the U.S. Supreme Court a message that the Second Amendment is critical as the single right that allows Americans to ensure continuation of all of the others. The march is being spearheaded by the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, but also is being coordinated with the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of American, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownerships, Second Amendment Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Virginia Shooting Sports Association and others. Plans tentatively are for tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people to assemble in Washington next spring, in 2010, to demonstrate broad national support for the recognition and preservation of the Second Amendment. "In the wake of last spring's D.C. vs. Heller U.S. Supreme Court decision which protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use and the renewed importance placed on the issue of gun rights across the country, the time is ideal for this historic gathering of gun owners at our national and state capitols," said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, a member of the Michigan organization's board of directors. "Our lawmakers need to understand that America's gun owners come from all races, genders, political viewpoints and economic backgrounds," said Chuck Perricone, MCRGO's executive director. The event is the brainchild of Michigan author Skip Coryell, who runs White Feather Press.com. He has related how he got an e-mail from a distraught woman in Belgium, horrified by a knife attack at a daycare facilities where workers have been stripped of arms by a draconian gun ban. And then there are the events in recent weeks in which there have been discussions to require federal licenses for handguns and limit access to ammunition, among other things. "This is the beginning of a period of historic change in our nation's history and it is no time for the timid. This is a time for brave men and women to stand up and be counted," Coryell said. "We want our children to inherit the same freedom our forefathers knew. Freedom has to be protected or it will fail. We are at a crossroads . The time to act is now." The Michigan group is assembling partnerships with other groups with similar concerns for a daylong rally which is intended to occur simultaneously with events at state capitols across the nation. The website explains the group mission is "to galvanize the courage and resolve of American gun owners, to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense." Coryell told WND in just seven days since suggesting the plan he's seen a literal flood of supportive e-mails. The emotions have ranged from downright paranoia about federal agents knocking down doors to confiscate guns to worry about a lack of access to weapons even by people who don't own them. "I think the majority of people are just saying, 'I am fed up. I am sick and tired of the government telling how to run my life." "I think people understand the Second Amendment is the one right that protects all the others," he told WND. "Freedom of speech, press, religion. If we don't have a right to keep and bear arms how are we going to protect the others?"
A court recently forced the city of San Francisco to pay $380,000 to the National Rifle Association (NRA) as reimbursement for legal fees incurred while striking down Proposition H (handgun ban within the city limits). This was a huge win for the NRA and civil rights for the people of San Francisco. In total, the city paid over $800,000 in fees to fight for their draconian law which discriminated against law abiding gun owners and was found to violate their constitutional rights. It's sad that San Francisco had to pay all that money while they are in a budget crisis in today's economy. I only hope that the Mayor apologizes for squandering the tax payer’s money, or better yet, resigns.
Our group is in full support of Democrat John Bradley's bill, and I hope most of his Illinois party members are with him!
From http://www.mariondaily.com/news/x545167231/Bradley-Introduces-Concealed-Carry-Law
Springfield, Ill. -
State Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, recently introduced House Bill 245, creating the Family and Personal Protection Act, which establishes statewide uniform standards for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms in Illinois.
“Forty-eight states have some form of concealed carry and it is time Illinoisans have the right to better defend themselves and their property,” Bradley, a longtime supporter of the Second Amendment, said. “Illinois needs to catch up with the rest of the nation. Responsible gun owners deserve the right to protect themselves and their families.”
House Bill 245 authorizes the Illinois State Police to issue concealed firearms permits to applicants who meet a stringent set of qualifications. A person is eligible to carry and conceal a firearm if he or she is: at least 21 years old; a resident of Illinois for the past six months and a permanent U.S. resident; has not been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; does not demonstrate a lack of mental capacity according to Illinois State Police records; and does not have a problem with substance abuse. In addition, those seeking a concealed carry permit must complete firearms and deadly use of force training.
Under the proposal, concealed firearms will not be allowed inside police stations, prisons, government offices, courthouses, bars, airports, schools, riverboats, amusement parks, arenas, stadiums and churches.
On Election Day last fall, voters in Crawford, Effingham, Franklin, Greene, Jasper, Jefferson, Union, Ogle, Saline and Woodford counties approved referenda supporting the right of Illinoisans to carry defensive firearms.
“Our nation was founded upon the right to bear arms,” Bradley said. “I will continue to fight to uphold our Second Amendment rights that are endowed to all law-abiding citizens.”
I know I'm not alone, to worry very much about Eric Holder as Attorney General, and what it might mean for us gun owners. Obama has said that he supports the Heller decision, but Eric Holder apparently does not agree with him.
Well, it didn't take very long with Obama as president for some anti-gun legislators to get back to their old tricks. Bobby Rush (D-Chicago) has submitted H.R.45 "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009". This draconian piece of legislation would create a federally-run gun licensing scheme. Every gun you own would have to be registered with the Federal government, and the Attorney General would be granted the power to decide who can own a firearm.
This act is very dangerous, because it would enable the government to implement confiscation. This bill would also violate the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision from 2008, which declared that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use.
Reading through the bill, you can see the massive amount of ignorance and arrogance that went into it; discriminating against the law-abiding gun owner.
I would trust that Obama would veto such a radical, anti-constitutional bill, since he has consistently stated that gun owners have nothing to fear with him as our president. But let's not give it a chance to get to his desk!
Please contact your elected representatives to express your opposition to H.R45!
