The 2nd Amendment states….”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.” It is that simple. What the framers of the Constitution understood was that the citizens of this great country could defend themselves from an autocratic, dictatorial government.

In recent years, the assault on the Constitution by those who would seek to gain power and control over the citizens of the United States has gained strength. I call them Liberal Socialist Marxists….LSM’s for short. Others call them Secular Progressives, Liberals, and some lump them under the category of Democrats. Or is it Democratics…the names keep changing, but they are all of the same ilk, and mindset. Simply put, they don’t want an armed citizenry. They don’t want us to own firearms. They want to deny our heritage. They want to deny us our Constitutional right. They want complete control without fear of reprisal. Please understand that I am NOT suggesting or support an armed rebellion, but if you stop to think about it, why else would they want to eliminate firearms ownership?

Under H.R. 1022, your deer rifle is considered a “sniper” rifle. Cosmetic appearance is enough to have your SKS deemed an “assault” weapon. Magazine capacity is enough to have it deemed an “evil” firearm. If it has a pistol grip…of any kind…it is deemed “bad.” This includes almost any rifle or shotgun you own, unless it has an “English” stock. About the only thing that survives this legislation is a 22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine. What is wrong with this picture? There are an estimated 100 million gun owners in this country. Are they going to be suddenly transformed into a criminal class if this legislation passes? A good question, and the answer is yes, or at least a good portion of them will be, since it is highly doubtful that all of them will voluntarily surrender their rights or firearms. Go back up to the first paragraph and read the Second Amendment again.

Anytime in history a government has mandated total registration and total control over firearms ownership, bad things have happened to the citizens of that country. One of the most blatant examples is what took place in Germany in the 1930’s when Hitler rose to power. Every firearm owned by a private citizen was on record. Firearms were confiscated as Hitler continued his ascent to power, and the German population was soon under the boot heel of his Nazi government. Those that protested were either imprisoned or summarily executed. And we all know from the history books what happened after that. They had no Second Amendment guarantee or protection.

Certain groups are presently trying to get the United Nations to pass resolutions to undermine our Constitution. They say it is to alleviate the armed conflicts in small, third world, developing countries, but it is, in fact, a well funded, concerted effort to eliminate private firearm ownership in this country. These efforts are being put forth by people not citizens of this country. That said, these forces have allies in this country, some of them private groups, and some of them are elected officials, representatives of the people. Does the Million Mom March ring a bell? It was a protest to “protect us from ourselves!

What about the ORIGINAL million mom march? You don’t know what that was? Or when it happened? Let me take you back to Hitler’s Germany for a moment. As he rounded up dissenters, Jews, Catholics, and others he deemed not part of the “super race,” millions of moms were stripped naked, marched into concentration camps and forced into slave labor or put to death.

These people say that we shouldn’t own firearms, of any sort, for any reason, and use all sorts of emotional arguments why we shouldn’t. They know what is best for us, we don’t know what is best for ourselves. At least that is my interpretation of their actions. It is like the federal government saying they know how to spend our money better than we do when they increase our taxes, taking our money for their pet projects. I don’t buy it, and neither should you.

We should carefully consider who we elect to office, examining voting records, making certain that what they say and what they actually do are the same, instead of political pablum offered to gain them votes. If they don’t do what they say they’re going to do, they should not be re-elected. Especially when it comes to doing their Constitutional duties that they swore an oath to do.

People who own firearms in a free society are citizens. If those rights are stripped away, we become slaves to an ever increasingly oppressive government.

I’m NRA, and I vote!

A three judge panel from the District of Columbia Circuit Court recently ruled in a 2-1 decision that the restriction of firearm ownership in the District is unconstitutional. This is good news to gun owners around the country, and exceptionally good news to residents of the District of Columbia. The only down side is that the defendants in this case have promised to appeal the decision, which means that the entire circuit panel will hear and have to rule on this. Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

Oddly enough, the NRA had very little, if anything to do with this lawsuit, Parker v. District of Columbia. It was brought by six District of Columbia residents, including Cato Institute senior fellow, Tom Palmer. All they wanted to do was keep functional firearms in their homes for self defense.

For those who don’t know what has happened in the District of Columbia, residents of the district cannot legally own a handgun. The law curtailing this right was passed in the 1970’s. Long guns are legal, but have to be locked up, and, preferably, dismantled, if possible.

Several attempts to repeal this law have been attempted in the past, but to no avail. Liberals in Congress, as well as in the elected officials of the District have maintained that the police and other law enforcement are the only ones who should be armed.

With this latest ruling, and pending appeal, if the ruling of the three judge panel is overturned by the full court, it is very likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case. If the Supremes do decide to hear it, it would be the first Second Amendment case they have heard in almost 70 years.

The government, our elected officials, did an end run around the Constitution by putting all laws, rules, and regulations under interstate commerce authority, thereby eliminating, in essence, the Constitution as it applies to our Second Amendment. In an effort to wash their hands of making rulings, they also made gun laws a “state’s rights” issue. However, since the District of Columbia is not a state this seemed to be the perfect place to file the suit. At least to me.

Now, with all the prohibitive gun laws in the District, if you follow the thinking of anti-gunners, the District would be a great place to be. No crime, no murders, no nothing but a bunch of folks able to gather any place at any time and hold hands and sing coombayah. However, nothing could be further from that mindset. Washington, D.C. is also known as the Murder Capitol. It seems that while the good, law abiding citizens follow the law, the criminals do not. They know that they will not be challenged by an armed citizen when they commit a robbery, a burglary, or a car jacking. The criminals should send campaign contributions to those elected officials who mandated this gun policy.

Check out various parts of the country, usually those with a high population density, and check out their murder rate by firearm. Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles ALL have murder rates that are unbelievable. They also have some of the harshest and most stringent gun laws in the country. What is wrong with this picture?

Remember back when Florida started a “shall issue” policy for concealed carry by “civilians?” And Texas? The anti-gunners proclaimed loud and long that “blood would run in the streets.” They couldn’t have been further from the truth, but the mainstream media let them have all the airtime they wanted. What actually happened? Crime went down. Criminals do not want to encounter an armed “victim.” It is as simple as that. If they think THEY might become a victim, they are less likely to commit the crime.

Great Britain and Australia both joined this anti-gun campaign, and confiscated almost all firearms, specifically handguns, but some long guns, also. What happened after that was an overall increase in crime. Burglaries, muggings, and armed robberies increased. The law abiding people turned in their guns, the criminals didn’t.

We need to maintain our vigilance and stand in the way, in whatever way possible, against those who would strip us of our Constitutional rights to “keep and bear arms.”

For those who want to read the decision, here is the link. It is 75 pages in a PDF format.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Those of us who own guns, shoot, and hunt are constantly barraged by the media and other uninformed people about assault rifles. Carolyn McCarthy is one of these people. She “thinks” that cosmetic appearance is what determines what an assault rifle is. She couldn’t be further from the truth, and without going out on a limb, I would say that on the subject of assault rifles, she is totally ignorant.

Assault rifles are, primarily, government owned and for military use. The come in all sorts of configurations, but the ONE thing that distinguishes them is their ability to fire in a fully automatic mode. Hold the trigger down and the gun will fire until it’s supply of ammunition has been depleted.

The Soviet bloc nations all used the AK-47, the U.S. armed forces currently use the M-16, in several variants. A lot of the European nations use the FAL or the H&K MP-5, or one of it’s variants. All are fully automatic weapons. Well, the current version of the M-16 fires a three shot burst with one pull of the trigger, but some variants will go ’til they’re out of ammo.

Now what Ms. McCarthy is trying to do is create a public hysteria, aided by the mainstream media, to create an outcry against anything that resembles an assault weapon. To date, she has been unsuccessful in her ambitions to remove firearms from the American public, in direct contradiction of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In her latest legislation, any firearm with a thumbhole stock, a pistol grip of any kind, or a magazine capacity over 10 rounds is, in her mind, an assault rifle.

Almost all firearms produced today, sporting and otherwise, have a pistol grip. This is true on shotguns and rifles. By adding that little bit of wording to her legislation, she is attempting to make your Belgian Browning A-5 shotgun or your Ruger 10/22 carbine.
While these pistol grips are not configured like those on an AR or AK or FAL REAL assault rifle, they are, nonetheless, pistol grips.

Another misconception that she is fostering is magazine capacity. Under Clinton, they were successful in getting a maximum capacity of 10 rounds in both handguns and rifles. Again, the mainstream media played a huge role in perpetrating the hoax on the average person that magazine capacity also determined what an assault rifle was. Magazine capacity has absolutely no bearing on what consititutes an assault rifle. If that was true, those 25 round magazines made as an aftermarket accessory for Ruger’s 10/22 would make it an illegal firearm. Or my M1A with it’s 20 round magazines would be an assault rifle, and under her theory, also an assault rifle, though it is NOT a fully automatic rifle.

But her proposed legislation does not stop with her rant about “assault rifles.” Far from it. She also includes what she terms “sniper” rifles. You know, like your Browning A-Bolt in 300 Winchester Magnum, with a scope on top of it which you use to hunt deer, elk, bear, and hogs. These are now deemed “evil.” Apparently she does not know that the military has taken a sporting rifle and used it in what can only be termed, a “military” manner. Model 70 Winchesters and Model 700 Remingtons with telescopic sights, like we use, were and are being used by military snipers. They do not have a large magazine capacity, generally four in the magazine and one in the chamber giving it a five round capacity. Yet these are evil, to hear her speak.

We can, if we wish to spend the time and money, own fully automatic weapons. You do have to undergo a more extensive background check, have the blessing of your local law enforcement agency, either sheriff or chief of police, and pay a special $200 tax in order to possess such a piece.

What is needed is more effective enforcement of all the current firearms laws, not more. Guns, by themselves are not “evil.” It is who uses them, and how they are used that determines that.

It is clear to all of us that she does not like guns. It is also clear, that she has no idea what she is talking about, especially when she mouths the words “assault rifle.” It is also clear that she doesn’t believe in the Constitution….well, maybe she believes in most of it, just not the Second Amendment, and make no mistake, if she gets her way, a new criminal class will be created.

A lot of us have written, emailed, called, and/or faxed our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. about Carolyn McCarthy’s proposed gun ban legislation. To date, it is STILL in committee, but I have every fear that this will make it’s way to the floor.

I have posted my concerns about this legislation on a couple of gun board forums, and have received a lot of feedback from the people there on the subject. Two gentlemen there have given me permission to copy the responses from their congressmen. You read these and make your own mind up as to how these “representatives” of the people are going to vote on this legislation, if and when it comes to the floor of the House for debate and a vote.

Dear Mr. Jackson ,

Thank you for contacting me about reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. I appreciate knowing your views.

I opposed the ban on semi-automatic weapons when it first came up in 1994 for several reasons. First, the ban failed to distinguish between law-abiding and non law-abiding gun owners. Second, it banned an entire class of firearms based on the misuse of a small fraction of those guns. Finally, the ban was largely cosmetic in nature, based on the appearance of the guns involved rather than on the function of the guns. Therefore, while I supported the overall goal of the legislation – to take destructive weapons away from violent, dangerous people who would misuse them – the law was fundamentally flawed and did not address the key issues.

I am aware of and concerned about the horrible problems we face in this country with violence, particularly gun violence. I am tremendously bothered by the increasing violence in American society, and especially troubled by kids shooting kids. I am also aware of the concerns raised by police officers regarding the proliferation of guns on our streets. There are many horrible people in this world who do terrible things with many weapons, including knives and explosives as well as guns.

Under the 10-year sunset provision in the original law, the federal ban on semi-automatic weapons expired on September 13, 2004. You can be sure that as Congress considers whether to renew or modify the ban, I will certainly support anything that is likely to be effective in reducing our national violence and the improper use of firearms.

Thank you again for contacting me. With best wishes, I am

Sincerely,

Vernon J. Ehlers
Member of Congress

Mr. Jackson was somewhat put out by the non answer to his reply. So, with that in mind, here is what he wrote back to Mr. Vernon J. Ehlers…..

This is what I sent him in reply:

Mr. Ehlers,

What the heck kind of answer is that? YES or NO !?
You know as well as I that there are thousands of laws on the books already. All more idiotic laws do is hurt the law-abiding average Joe. Enforce what you have already. Stop all this PC BS and do what is RIGHT, not what you think will get more votes. Most of Congress needs to grow some balls, are you in that group? Think of the Constitution and not yourself for once.

Sincerely,

Mr. Jackson

Do you think he might strike a nerve with his response? I do, especially the last three sentences!

Now, here is another response to a voiced concern about Ms. McCarthy’s legislation….

Dear James :

I am a strong supporter of your right to keep and bear arms and I will oppose efforts by Rep. McCarthy to limit those rights.

Guns do not commit crimes, people do. Washington DC , where it is illegal to own a handgun, proves that we do not need more gun control, we need more crime control. In Washington , the “bad guys” have guns and the law abiding citizens do not. Hard data clearly shows that gun control does not work.

One of the rights specifically protected in our bill of rights, second only to the freedom of speech is that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Constitution is clear about this. I will continue to support and vote for legislation that protects your right to bear arms. I am glad that we agree on this issue .

Warmest Regards,
Zach Wamp
Member of Congress

I have not researched these two congressmen. I do not know their political affiliations, and really don’t care. I am assuming that they are both Democrats, since I know what parts of the country they are from. However, one recognizes the Constitution, the Second Amendment rights, and says so. On the other hand, the first response posted seems to be saying nothing.

Mr. Jackson, was in my opinion, justified in sending his indignant response to his representative. It was a non answer. Of course, almost all politicians seem to learn the art of the non answer while campaigning and after being elected, just polish it into an art form. We need to keep ‘reminding’ our congressfolks of our position on this matter, and by continuing to contact them by all means necessary, we can only heighten the possibility that this will meet the same fate her other attempts at gun banning met. Let’s keep the barrage going.

OTHER STUFF….

In reference to Sen. Diane Feinstein’s Deputy U.S. Marshal status, I still haven’t received a reply of any kind from her office, but I did call the local office and asked if the could confirm her status. I got a “no comment” from them. I know assuming things is dangerous, but what am I left to believe?

This was copied from Ms. McCarthy’s website…read it and pick out the lies.

Originally Posted by Carolyn McCarthy
Tuesday February 13, 2007

“Yesterday we learned of more unnecessary deaths from gun violence in Philadelphia, PA and Salt Lake City, UT. I am saddened to hear of these events and have introduced legislation that if enacted will prevent further violence.

I am deeply saddened by yesterday’s events. I remain committed to passing common sense legislation to prevent further acts of gun violence.”

What more can I say than that the lady will say anything, including making outright lies to get guns taken away from us?

After the firestorm created by Jim Zumbo, and light shining on H.R. 1022, it occured to me that not only are we, gun owners, under attack, the Constitution of this country is under attack. And those that are trying to nullify our Constitution are those very same people who are trying to nullify our Second Amendment rights.

I refer to them as Liberal Marxist Socialists. Some others call them Democrats or Secular Progressives. Others call them, me included, names and terms that I can’t use here. But their agenda is all the same, total domination of the American public and making the Constitution just a piece of paper with writing on it.

Why would the LMS’s want to outlaw guns? Not a question that has a simple answer. First, they want to disarm the American population, because a tyrannical government can’t function as long as the masses have a means to fight back. This was understood by our Founding Fathers, and the “right to keep and bear arms” was added to the Constitution.

Their philosophy is grounded in socialist and communist theories, and have been successfully utilized by various regimes/governments around the world. Do the names Stalin, Lenin, Castro, and Hitler mean anything to you? Did/do they ride rough shod over their citizens? I use the term ‘citizen’ loosely here, because it is MY feeling that a citizen can have a firearm. A ’subject’ cannot.

Between Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, almost 25 million people have lost their lives due to the ambitions of these three “leaders.” Lenin and Stalin killed, primarily, their own people. Hitler, though he did kill some of his own “citizens,” it should be remembered that those Germans were either Jews or Catholics. As his armies conquered and occupied other European countries, those of Jewish faith were rounded up and shipped off to Dachau and Auschwitz among other camps for death. The one other thing that all three of them had in common was that they disarmed the citizenry. Is that any different from what our LMS elected representatives are attempting to do to us?

They have managed to take control of our higher education system, using the classroom and threat of failing grades to indoctrinate their “students.” They have taken over control, to a large degree the media, both electronic and print. They pass legislation at national, state, county, and local levels that mandate certain behaviors and attitudes that we all seem to shake our heads at but never protest. Judges, appointed by LMS types are now making law, not enforcing it. Check out the Ninth Circuit in California if you think I’m kidding.

I’m currently in the process of gathering some quotes from Carolyn McCarthy and others of her ilk, that are quoted by the press, but are outright lies that could be easily checked for the facts, but aren’t. Instead, they are parroted.

I have yet to hear back from the NRA about the question concerning Sen. Diane Feinstein’s status as a U.S. Deputy Marshall. I have contacted her office by email, and phone, and have not received a reply or a cogent answer to either query. If they are that hesitant to answer that question, I have to believe that it is true….but that is just MY opinion. As soon as I have a response, I’ll post it here.

OTHER THINGS TO REPORT

In past posts I have spoken of a friend of mine who gives away starter rifles and shotguns to youngsters who don’t have one, and whose parents don’t own firearms. Well, he shipped one to me to give to a neighbor boy. It arrived late last week, and is one of the NEF combo guns. A single shot 22 rifle barrel, and a 410 gauge single shotgun barrel. Comes in a very nice nylon carrying case with slots for both barrels and receiver.

Saturday morning, Alex, and his dad came over at my invitation. When I handed it to him, I thought he was going to wet his pants. His dad knew what was going on, since I had already talked it over with him. Had the room been dark, I would have needed sunglasses to protect my eyes from the brightness of HIS eyes and smile.

Rules are, it stays at my house. He has to learn all the safety rules for handling and shooting a firearm. He has to learn how to assemble and disassemble it. He has to learn how to clean and oil it. After that, I’m taking him and his dad to the range for a session of shooting it. When his dad gets a secure storage place for it…and no, not the closet, it gets to move to his house.

I’ve already gotten him a cleaning kit and a brick of 22 shells for it, and am looking forward to teaching him about the gun, how to work it, and teaching him how to shoot.

As with keeping all our elected officials in line, we also all have an obligation to introduce our sports to the next generation and the one after that.

As I have stated in a previous post, Carolyn McCarthy, (D-NY) has introduced legislation calling for the ban of all “assault” type weapons, magazine capacities of 10 rounds maximum, and ANY firearm that utilizes a pistol grip…of any kind, including thumbhole stocks. The only magazine that appears to have escaped the 10 round maximum is the tubular magazine on 22 rifles.

I have been receiving all sorts of feedback on this proposed legislation and it’s author from various sources, and will share it with you here. The author, Ms. McCarthy has sponsored 92 bills since January 6, 1999. Out of this number, 89 have not made it out of committee. The other three failed to pass on a floor vote. So, we need to keep her average of zero going.

If you continue to write and call your representative, that is a good way to keep this topic and legislation on their radar. We need to let them know that their ‘yea’ vote on this is a high risk vote on their part. If you desire to write the author, you should know that when you access her through the House of Representatives portal, you will not be able to email her directly unless you put in a zip code included in her district. Oddly enough, I happen to have the link AND the zip code. Ms. McCarthy can be contacted at

www.house.gov/writerep

You will need to enter HER zip code 11530

I contacted the NRA about confirming my statement that Dianne Feinstein was made a U.S. Deputy Marshall so that she could carry a concealed handgun on domestic common carrier flights. I have yet to hear back from them.

I have, however found a picture of Chuck Schumer firing a full auto firearm, a TEC 9. Please note the look of excitement on his face. Also note that he is not wearing any eye protection.

I hope every one of us stays with this legislation. We need to let them know that they have awakened a sleeping giant, and we are not in a good mood. We as a group need to remain vigilant as the Consititution of the United States is continually under assault from some of our elected “leaders.” These are the same people who, when sworn into office, took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” By assaulting the Second Amendment from their positions as elected officials, I now believe that they are violating their oath, and should be considered a “domestic enemy.

One more thing…does anyone besides me find it a bit ironic that the number on this legislation is 1022? As in Ruger 10/22? Sorry, I felt the need for a bit of humor there.