Just as the US was born of the firearm, so it grew. Settlers depended on their guns to protect their families and to procure food. Westward expansion would never have been possible without armed pioneers. Private ownership of guns is an integral part of our heritage, and one that has not diminished with the passage of time.

Today, as in the past, gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Modern police forces and the branches of the military have not erased or negated our need and desire to bear arms. Many law-abiding citizens feel safe in the knowledge that they can offer adequate protection for themselves and for their families in these uncertain times. In fact, our need to be personally armed might be even more necessary today.

Hunting is also part of our legacy. Stalking and killing wild game is ingrained in many of us. Putting food on the table that was harvested by our own efforts and cunning skill provides the ultimate sense of freedom and independence. It’s true Americana and all but impossible without the Second Amendment.

Who knows what the future holds for America? Our economic foundation is quickly crumbling, and whispers of political unrest are rumbling across the land. Food shortages, riots, and domestic and international terrorism could ensue. If and when that happens, it will be the well armed citizens who survive – the ones who can hunt and kill their own meat and who can protect their food and other belongings from those who would take it.

The Second Amendment will always be held dear by a huge number of Americans. It’s in our blood. It’s part of our independent spirit. It’s part of what makes us Americans.

Curt adds – holle abee wrote the above essay and submitted in the earlier RangerUp 2nd Amendment T-Shirt contest…and won. Congrats on a great essay.

Oh. My.

Zogby/O’Leary Poll Reveals Majority of Voters Will Oppose Senators Who Vote to Confirm an Anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Nominee

Strong Majority of Independents, Democrats and Obama Voters Support the Right to Carry a Firearm

…Judge Sotomayor does not believe the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” and the right to self-defense are fundamental rights of all Americans. Specifically, Judge Sotomayor believes the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government and does not apply to the States, as indicated by her recent testimony and past rulings.

Zogby/O’Leary asked voters:

“Would you support or oppose a U.S. Senator who voted to confirm a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense?”

Fifty-two percent of American voters would oppose the re-election of any Senator who votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Only 26 percent of voters would support such a Senator.

Among Independent voters, 57 percent would oppose such a Senator, and only 17 percent would support. Forty-nine percent of young voters (age 18-29) would oppose a Senator who votes to confirm a nominee who does not believe Second Amendment rights apply to all Americans, and just 31 percent would support such a Senator. A plurality of Hispanic voters (42 percent) would oppose such a Senator, and only 28 percent would support. A large percentage of Hispanics (30 percent) are not sure. A majority of union members (54 percent) would also oppose, and 29 percent would support.

The Right to Carry a Firearm

An amendment that would have permitted law-abiding gun owners with concealed-carry permits to carry their firearms across state lines recently fell short in the Senate. Although the amendment received a majority of votes (58-39), a filibuster-proof 60 votes were required for passage.

Zogby/O’Leary asked voters:

“Currently, 39 states have laws that allow residents to carry firearms to protect themselves, only if they pass a background check and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Most of those states also require applicants to have firearms safety training. Do you support or oppose this law?”

An overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) support concealed-carry laws, while only 11 percent oppose them. A majority of Independent voters (86 percent), Democrats (80 percent), young voters age 18-29 (83 percent), Hispanic voters (80 percent), and those who voted for President Obama (80 percent) support the right to carry a firearm.

The sub-headline is too modest. 80% of voters cannot agree as to whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. 83% is an overwhelming majority.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a sea change in public opinion.

Hat Tip: Say Uncle by way of Glen “Instapundit” Reynolds.

Too bad Lesley Stahl couldn’t utilize footage of 20/20’s “Virginia Tech” gun experiment (which looks to have been aired the same weekend as the 60 Minutes ep) to buttress her “more gun control/guns are bad” push:

I think there are some good points and merit in the 20/20 scenario staging; however, their experiment itself, I think, is far from empirical and nonbiased.

For one, the “intruder” is already at a clear advantage given he’s a trained firearms instructor firing with the accuracy of such, while the students have only been given a crash course; other than clearing a holster, I don’t really see them getting trained in combative handgun use. Sure, it’s one possible scenario; but how about one of those students trade places and be the intruder, while the firearms instructor be the one sitting in the classroom? Or, if that’s “unfair” and “missing the point”, why not replace the firearms instructor completely in his role as intruder and use one of the students with short-term training to make it “even”? Why give the students baggy clothes? Why create just one possible environment and hypothetical scenario? How about having someone not taken by “the element of surprise and panic”, and arriving on scene to draw his weapon on the attacker? The situation is heavily weighted to demonstrate failure.

I agree with 20/20 points regarding reaction time, stress, tunnel vision, etc. (reminds me of the classic law enforcement video, Surviving Edged Weapons); but not with the propaganda 20/20 is pushing: That guns in the hands of ordinary citizens doesn’t save lives, and if anything endangers them.

So what’s the alternative to 20/20’s hypothetical that they are endorsing? Remove all chances of defending yourself (and others) with an equalizer and just live out the last remaining seconds of your life as a sitting duck.

Here’s an antidote video for the 20/20 piece:

From the pending takeover of 17% of  economy under the auspices of health care reform, to the government takeover and subsequent ownership of automobile companies, to the unconstitutional interference in the formerly private market under the rubric of stimulating the economy. Not to mention the proposed cap and trade legislation which would give the federal government unlimited powers of taxation and regulation under the guise of saving the planet.

Totally ignored by elected officials of both parties is the tenth amendment of the Constitution, which states very clearly, “The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Many Americans don’t agree with the left’s idea of a ‘living constitution’, arguing that the intent of the founders should govern the interpretation and application of the Constitution, not the whimsical and politically motivated present day politicians. And, largely unreported by the media, they are starting to stand up to the federal government.

To date, 37 states have introduced sovereignty resolutions, asserting their state’s sovereign rights under the tenth amendment.

Earlier this month, Louisiana became the seventh state, joining Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho and Tennessee to officially adopt a resolution affirming their sovereignty. These states are putting the federal government on notice that politicians in Washington do not have the right, under the Constitution, to continue to impose their increasingly onerous federal mandates on sovereign states.

Some states, with Arizona leading the way, are going a step further.

Under Arizona’s Health Care Freedom Act, which was passed by the Arizona state legislature this month, a voting initiative will be placed on the 2010 ballot that, if passed, will allow Arizona to opt out of any federal health care plan.

Following Arizona’s lead, five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives to opt out of federal health care for their 2010 ballots This, even before Congress has created the program.

Arizona is also preparing for the misnamed ‘climate’ bill, that passed the House this month. (With eight Republican votes.) The Arizona state Senate voted 19-10 to approve a bill banning the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing measures with language pertaining to climate change.

to climate change.
Other states are stepping up to the plate and asserting their state’s sovereign right under the second amendment – a right that guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

On July 6, Florida introduced the Firearms Freedom Act which seeks to provide “that specified firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition for personal use manufactured in state are not subject to federal law or regulation” in the State of Florida.

Increasingly, the representatives ‘we the people’ have elected to preserve and protect our rights, are ignoring the clear, unequivocal language of the Constitution. Our politicians seem unaware of the fact that the Constitution does not include  congressional power to override state laws.

In fact, the power our representatives are now accruing to the federal government was expressly voted down, not once, but several times.

During the Constitutional ratification process, James Madison drafted the ‘Virginia Plan’ which advocated a strong federal government. It proposed, among other things, giving Congress legislative authority, and a veto over state laws. Each of Madison’s proposals was soundly defeated. Our founders clear intent was vesting all powers in the states, with but a few, listed exceptions.

Ever since 1938, when FDR used the occasion of the great depression to drastically expand the scope of federal government (Wickard vs Filburn) using an absurd reading of the Commerce Clause, this unconstitutional taking of power by the central government has gone virtually unchallenged. Until now.

Though the media has ignored these efforts, ‘we the people’ are starting to fight back, via our state and local representatives.

Politicians need to be reminded that our Constitution is still in effect. And Americans need to be reminded that just because some believe the trendy notion that our Constitution is a ‘living, breathing’ document, doesn’t make it so.

Crossposted from Right Bias

Time for a little CNN smackdown.

Don Lemon seems to want to perpetuate the worldwide Obama euphoria and media-generated image-making. However…

Watch CNN’s Lemon get his Obama tire deflated:

Transcript:

DON LEMON, ANCHOR CNN NEWSROOM: Nkepile, I was watching you yesterday on the “Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer when President Obama was arriving, and they were doing the dancing, and all of the people who were running up to him. For a western leader, I know when presidents come over there, they are usually warmly received. But for a western leader, have you ever seen anything like this? Is this unprecedented?

NKEPILE MABUSE, CORRESPONDENT: It’s not unprecedented. When President Bush was here, you will remember, in February, there were people who were drumming, there were dances, and President Bush joined some of them. So, it’s not unprecedented. This is a truly African welcome that is given to anybody whether they are from Africa or anywhere else in the world, Don.

LEMON: So, they welcome everyone. It doesn’t matter. That’s just part of how the people do it, right?

MABUSE: Indeed, Don.

Here’s Wizbang:

As President Obama makes his way to Africa with some forceful policy goals Reuters is asking if Obama is Africa’s savior. Umm, no. That would be George W. Bush.

I posted on George Bush’s contribution to the continent of Africa.

Have gun, will travel….or is it the other way around? (Hat tip: Ed Rasimus)

Missouri car dealer offers free AK-47’s with the purchase of a new truck:

Mark Muller, owner of Max Motors in Butler, says he knows people will be bothered by the promotion.

But not to worry, Muller is not handing out free guns. Instead, he will give buyers a voucher to use at a gun store after they obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon.

The AK-47 is an upgrade on a previous promotion in which Muller gave away vouchers for the price of a Caltec pistol.

The retail value of an AK-47 is $450, but Muller says customers can spend their voucher on the gun of their choice.

Check out the major pwnage:

Frustrated liberals are asking why a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House can’t manage to close the Guantanamo prison or keep new gun-rights laws from passing.

After all, President Barack Obama pledged to shut down the military detention center on Cuba for suspected terrorists. And Democratic control of the government would suggest that any gun legislation leads to tighter controls on weapons, not expanded use.

Even as they grouse, however, liberal lawmakers acknowledge that no one factor explains last week’s disappointing back-to-back votes in Congress.

The Obama administration is focused on other priorities, they say. Party leaders don’t want to endanger Democratic lawmakers from conservative districts by stressing divisive issues such as gun control.

On Guantanamo, many say, Obama and his allies were caught napping as Republicans stirred public fears about relocating suspected terrorists.

“I think it’s one of the few times that he didn’t think it all the way out,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., an unabashed admirer of the president.

“One of the few times that he didn’t think it all the way out” and was caught napping? Rofl!

Is it the vast right-wing conspiracy that forced President Obama to not think it all the way through and sign an executive order within a week of being sworn into office to close Guantanamo? An EO that was all window dressing and no substance? No plan in place first as to what to do with the detainees? If not Gitmo, then what?

Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress.

Apparently, fewer registered voters want to identify themselves as Republicans (doesn’t mean conservatives suddenly exchanged ideologies for liberalism, of course).

So what’s the problem?

Two votes in Congress last Wednesday dismayed many liberals and exposed the limits of their influence even with Obama as president and Democrats holding solid majorities in both houses.

The Senate voted 90-6 to join the House in blocking the transfer of any prisoners from Guantanamo. Harsh treatment and indefinite detention of suspects there have sparked worldwide criticisms of the U.S. government and helped al-Qaida recruit volunteers, said Obama, who pledges to close the prison early next year. Lawmakers say they want more details on where detainees will be sent.

Also Wednesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to join the Senate in letting people carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. More than 100 House Democrats and 174 Republicans voted for the gun measure, which was attached to an Obama-backed bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies.

More popcorn, please.

Alan Corwin has done a great job of detailing the specifics of the treaty:

• EVERY aspect of the treaty introduces major required gun controls, most of which will affect average citizens (as well as the targeted criminal syndicates, dictators and other bad actors).
• The controls go way past anything EVER attempted by gun-control groups in the United States.
• NONE of the proposed gun controls are likely to pass by themselves through Congress. If the treaty is enacted they don’t have to — they become law when the treaty is ratified.
• Virtually NO PROTECTIONS FOR RKBA are to be found, and the wordings are loose enough to allow all sorts of attacks on gun rights American enjoy today.
• The U.S. government under this treaty GAINS POWER to manage firearms almost any way it would like to, without checks and balances.
• Once signed, many of the restrictions and government intrusions become MANDATORY, and the full Congress, already cut out of ratification (only the Senate approves treaties) would be cut out of the implementation process entirely.
• Top to bottom registration of all firearms, ammunition, ammunition components and other related materials is required if they are “in transit” and records must be kept indefinitely. This vague language, and the requirement to comply are a gun-banner’s dream and a rights advocate’s nightmare.
• “Transit licenses or authorizations” for transfers of firearms are required for imported firearms, and loose language could include the same for all domestic firearms.
• Lengthy recordkeeping is required that directly conflicts with U.S. law, and would be left up to bureaucrats and arbitrary controls and implementation.
• Home reloading of ammunition would become illegal and subject to severe sanctions, without government licensing that is undefined and could include almost any conditions, taxes and limitations, including scrupulous inventorying, recordkeeping and unscheduled audit searches of people who reload.
• Similar licensing and controls will be required on anything made “that can be attached to a firearm,” known as “other related materials.” This includes components, parts, replacement parts and such items as wood or composite stocks, slings, bayonets, bayonet lugs, sights, scopes, rails, lasers, grips, flash hiders, suppressors, muzzle brakes and other paraphernalia. Attaching any such parts without a government license would be “illicit manufacture,” a criminal act with undefined penalties.
• Record sharing requirements ensure that any gun-owner data that must be destroyed under current U.S. law can be easily stored abroad, and can be retrieved at will as required under various international “cooperation” clauses.

All this under the guise that guns from our country make up a huge percentage of the weapons used by drug cartels in Mexico…..lies, as Rep. Tancredo pointed out:

The ambassador says Americans are to blame for the violence wrecked on his country by the Mexican drug cartels because “most of the guns confiscated by Mexican police can be traced back to the United States.” That is not true, but the way that claim has been accepted by American politicians and the mainstream media raises suspicions about a hidden agenda.

We can almost forgive the Mexican ambassador for being confused when the United States agency responsible for enforcing our gun laws, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, has made so many contradictory statements on the matter. ATFE Assistant Director William Hoover told Congress last year that 90% of the weapons seized in Mexico crime scenes can be traced to gun sales in the US.

The problem is that 90% number isn’t true. Yet, that hasn’t kept it from being picked up and used by members of Congress, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and, of course, Mexican officials like Ambassador Sarukhan who are eager to blame the US for Mexico’s problems.

The 90% number reported by Hoover came from a small group of weapons turned over to the U.S. for tracing, but they were by no means all of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities. A spokesman for the ATFE, Matt Allen, has now “clarified” the number and admitted that only 17% of the weapons found at crime scenes in Mexico have been traced to the U.S. Ironically, while Mexican officials have freely used the 90% number from the ATFE, they have not themselves made such a charge based on their own numbers. The truth is, they know better.

Another shredding of our Constitution moment from our President. But wait a minute? A treaty cannot supersede our Constitution right?

Your right……but the way our courts are headed, do you want to trust this will never change? Alan tackles this issue:

Numerous attorneys and others wrote to challenge my position in Page Nine #63 that Mr. Obama’s run-around gun treaty could conveniently bypass the legislative process and the Constitution, like John M. says here:

“While your item in “Page 9″ about Congress and the Obamanation Administration using an Inter-American Treaty on ‘arms trafficking’ to do an end-run around the Second Amendment is certainly scary, I’m not ready to concede (as you appear to do) that a treaty supersedes the Constitution under Article VI.”

He goes on to describe why Art. VI and other safeguards will protect us.

Many people went into greater detail. Cases were cited (Reid v. Covert; Missouri v. Holland; Whitney v. Robinson; Cherokee Tobacco). One high-placed lobbyist felt fairly safe because:

“While an international treaty bypasses House consideration, it requires two-thirds of the Senate for ratification – a tall order even in ObamaNation.”

Other people were less sure, like Chuck G. here:

“I’m still up in the air about it as I’ve heard all my life exactly what you stated.”

I too always heard what he had heard — treaties supersede the Constitution — and always thought it odd. Go read Article VI, cl. 2 yourself. The language is crystalline. One attorney at a high-profile think tank believes:

“The federal government will have arguable legal authority to seize our guns and ammunition if this treaty is signed.”

So…

1. Opinions on the supremacy issue are inconsistent (though often adamant).

2. People who say the treaty won’t be a problem point to a number of SCOTUS decisions, and perhaps stare decisis. Maybe that makes those folks fully comfortable with where Mr. Obama is heading on this. Less so for me.

3. SCOTUS precedents are increasingly ignored by those in power, with groovy rationalizations each time. And SCOTUS decisions have so eviscerated key elements of the Constitution, my faith there is shaken, not stirred.

4. The courts, which should provide more balance, a) don’t, b) are run by the very people they’re supposed to balance, and c) all too often use the completely worthless rational-basis test, knowing it’s worthless, to allow every short-of-insane law to stand.

5. Given a choice of support for gun-rights or outright gun bans, we know which way this administration will go.

6. Four of the current SCOTUS Justices have expressed interest in defining U.S. law from foreign sources, leaving us one vote away from a new understanding of the supremacy clause.

7. Perhaps the biggest issue, though, making all else moot, is that new regs you can easily forecast coming from this treaty will be portrayed as a) required by international law so we’re only doing what’s right, b) required by Article VI however you like to read it, c) consistent with precedent, and most of all, d) not violative of the Second Amendment so no big deal.

After all, if, for instance, every home reloading enthusiast simply has to get a government license, pay an annual tax called a “fee,” pass a test, accept “routine” BATFE searches without notice like FFLs must, and keep detailed records so government can fulfill its obligation to track all guns and ammo, backed up with threats of prison time for paperwork errors or a miscount of a single round, what’s wrong with that?

Besides, you have an attorney general to protect you who’s on record saying a ban on any working firearm in your own home is acceptable under 2A, so, what me worry?

You have a choice: assume the treaty won’t be a problem, the supremacy clause will void any abuse and just let Mr. Obama enact the treaty, or remain a bit more skeptical of this man’s motives. Choose wisely.

Scary scary stuff.

Bobby Rush-IL has introduced HR 45 on 1/6/2009. Currently, there are no co-sponsors and the bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

And here it is.

Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.

Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.

Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.

Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

He wants to penalize people to require licensing for firearms. This includes precludes the free transfer of firearms. This would require all firearm sales to go through a licensed dealer. Even private party sales.

Lose or have your gun stolen? Report it in 72 hours or face jail time.

Move? Well, you now have to report that move to the government.

And while the media and the people are paying attention to the horrendous “stimulus” package, this has been completely ignored.

It is the beginning of control. However, if you look at these statistics, you have to wonder where the world will be with people like this trying to “save” us.

All data is for 2005, unless noted. Here’s the leading causes of death from the CDC.

Heart disease: 652,091
Cancer: 559,312
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
Diabetes: 75,119
Alzheimer’s disease: 71,599
Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
Septicemia: 34,136

For firearms, there were 30,964 deaths. These include all forms of death.

Out of those 30,964 deaths, 17,002 were suicides. Note that is over half of all deaths caused by firearms.

There were 13,962 homicides. These were intentional.

There were 789 deaths related to firearms considered unintentional. This would be accidental discharge, children playing with firearms, etc.

Now, here’s the striking part. You cannot regulate suicide. If the firearms weren’t available, you would have to assume that most of those suicides would have been completed using other means.

As for homicides, you have to conclude the same. While not quite as easy and expedient, the majority of those killings would still be committed.

And then we get to the crux of the argument. Those 789 people who lost their lives in 2005 due to unintentional accidents. Not all would be children.

So, look at the figures up above. Those account for 1,819,881 deaths. Then there’s transportation deaths of 47,894. Deaths by Poisoning: 32,691. Deaths by Alcohol: 21,081.

The total number of deaths was 2,448,017.

They want to regulate guns because of 789 accidental deaths. Those deaths, while each tragic, represents so few deaths compared to the other leading causes.

So the question is, where does big brother end? If they are willing to remove the rights for “our good”, then why isn’t the government taking on the responsibility of the other causes of death. At what point will the government manage caloric intake and mandate exercise, as those are two contributing factors Diabetes and Heart Disease.

Where is their outrage over people’s decisions to take their own lives in their own hands?

And where is the outrage of this attack on the Second Amendment?

I, for one, will be calling my representative early next week to state my displeasure. We must not let them take more rights away while they continue to reward failure.

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

Oh really?

It’s one thing to say you support the 2nd Amendment, but your actions over the years show us something different all together:

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

“Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold,” Arulanandam said.

Lets not forget how he answered the same kind of question in 1996:

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.

“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

Here he is back in September saying that he doesn’t want to take guns but if he did flip-flop (Obama never flip-flops right?) he couldn’t do it anyways:

A woman in the crowd [in Duryea, PA] told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

Classic Obama.

How can we forget this from his lips:

Obama said he believes in the Second Amendment, but that there is plenty of room for added gun regulations. “There is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation,” he said.

Some more facts on Obama and guns from the NRA:

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities. (Curt-But once ban was overturned he flip-flopped)

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.

Either way you look at it, his history shows us that we all should be very worried about our right to buy and bear arms.

More here.

A scene from one of my favorite westerns:

Other favorites, in no particular order:
1. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
2. A Fistful of Dollars
3. For a Few Dollars More
4. High Noon
5. Pale Rider
6. Unforgiven
7. Most any John Wayne movie
8. Blazing Saddles
9. The Three Amigos

I’m sure I’ve left some out. What are your favorites? Link a video clip of a favorite scene, if you’d like.

“Gun control” means hitting your target (previously posted by Mike):

In 1998-2001, while Barack Obama sat on the board1 of the $750,000,000 Joyce Foundation, the Foundation formed a plan to use millions to influence the outcome of a future Second Amendment Supreme Court case. The plan involved using its assets to buy up legal and historical academia, and even universities and their foundations.

Joyce Foundation realized a future Second Amendment Supreme Court case was probable; the Court would consult legal scholarship, i.e. books and law reviews; that scholarship had overwhelming concluded that the Second Amendment reflected an individual right, a result Joyce Foundation did not want.

The solution was simple: Joyce would lavish money on cash-starved law reviews and Universities, provided that they published only results acceptable to Joyce. In some cases, Joyce pressured the institutions to reject articles, and even to cancel academic presentations, that were contrary to its desires. Joyce also poured millions into creating shell organizations to support its views.

What we see today in the briefs in District of Columbia v. Heller, the DC gun case, is largely the product of that plan. Several amici who filed briefs are entirely the creation of Joyce’s money, and their briefs rely upon articles that Joyce paid to have written.

~~~

The Joyce Foundation years ago realized that a Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment was likely, and decided to use its millions to buy the case indirectly. It created a supposed academic research center as its wholly-owned subsidiary. It corrupted law reviews, dictating their content, and even trying to dictate who could speak at universities accepting Joyce’s money. It laundered its money through its Center and thru a University’s Foundation.

An attorney named Barak Obama was right in the middle of the plan.

Joyce paid for a research center at the Ohio State University and then used the center to provide scholarships to those who agree with the collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment (which basically states that the amendment only applies to the federal government). He then used the center to purchase more influence at other law review centers.

Joyce continued purchasing legal scholarship to support its intended result. In 2004 Fordham University Law Review brought out a Second Amendment issue. It at least acknowledged “The conference was funded by a generous grant from The Joyce Foundation.”

Two years later, Joyce bought the Stanford Law and Policy Review. The price had gone up, and the laundering of money become more sophisticated: its 2004 grants (now offline) listed:

Ohio State University Foundation John Glenn Institute for Public Service & Public Policy Columbus, OH $125,000. To host a symposium at Stanford Law School on the connections between the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, to publish papers in a major law review, and
disseminate findings via the Web. (2 yrs.)”

Note that the funds were now being laundered via the University’s Foundation. The issue was apparently a “customized” one. Stanford Law & Public Policy Review is a small journal, publishing twice a year. That year, however, it had three issues.

The Stanford publication made no acknowledgment that Joyce was underwriting the issue; with the money being laundered through OSU’s Foundation, the editors may not even have been informed. The discovery of the funding did embarrass the Review enough to cause its present editors to publish an open letter online,10 which asserted that they had been told that OSU (not Joyce, note) offered to defray the cost of printing this special third issue. The editors noted that Saul Cornell had organized the conference for the Review, and that his Center had paid for it, They also noted that the Review does not now receive any payments supporting it, underscoring the unusual nature of the earlier grant. Essentially, Joyce money had been laundered through OSU’s Center to organize the conference itself (with Prof. Cornell hand-picking the presenters), and more Joyce money had been laundered
through the OSU Foundation to print a special issue of the Review with those papers. It is hard to envision a more perfect corruption of the academic process.

This comes on the heels of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Obama’s work with Ayers in which they funneled millions to radical left wing organizations to indoctrinate students into the, as Ayers would say, Communism with a little “c”.

What kind of friends and influence will he bring into the White House if elected?

Too scary to imagine.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

I could see the gun control lobby clinging to this line of “dangerous and unusual weapons” and bringing various appeals up to the SCOTUS based upon it.

Which then depends on the makeup of the court five years from now. Obama becomes President we know how it will look and then we could look forward to a 6-3 decision in favor of weakening our second amendment rights.

That is how important this election is. For those thinking of staying at home, or throwing their vote away on a Keyes or a Barr, because of their disagreements with McCain in the past….think about that.

Five Justices, in the starkest display yet of the importance of presidential elections, saved a Constitutional right from extinction at the hands of liberals. One more Obama liberal on that Court, and the 2nd Amendment would be gone, erased from the Constitution, after more than 200 years. They are dangerous and they are dismantling our republic.

But real Americans won this one.

From the New York Times:

The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.

But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.

The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Scalia notes how, if the liberals had their way, anyone not in a militia (not sure where one signs up for that nowadays) would be subject to having their guns confiscated. Text of the opinion here. (All citations omitted).

Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.

And smacks it down

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The irony of the decision is that the 2nd Amendment was enacted to prevent the government from confiscating citizens’ guns. That’s a great idea until the government, through liberal justices on the Supreme Court, does an end around, and decides that there was no right in the first place. Thus is the tyrranny of the liberal judiciary.

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.

~~~

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving he militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

Scalia hits Breyer’s dissent for its typical arrogant, elitist, whatever-we-want-it-to-be, judicial philosophy, i.e. you only have the rights the judge gives you.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

And the hammer.

Whatever else [this opinion] leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

~~~

[W]hat is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We should not have to worry so much that we will wake up one Thursday in June to find that the Supreme Court has taken away our Constitutional rights. Had the liberals had one more vote, the sleeping masses would have risen up and demanded judicial scalps. Had they allowed guns to be banned in the home, there would have been mass lawbreaking with citizens hiding their weapons and stockpiling ammunition. The Founding Fathers certainly would have recognized that kind of behavior.

We’re lucky the liberals didn’t have that last vote.

Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

**********************************

Breaking news from ABC – SCOTUS got something right… in the usual 5-4 vote.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the District of Columbia cannot ban a citizen from keeping a handgun at home, throwing out one of the nation’s strictest gun control laws.

The Supreme Court has overturned Washington, D.C.’s strict gun ban.The 5-4 decision marks first time the court has ever definitively addressed the issue, which had been one of the great unresolved constitutional questions as experts debated whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and carry a gun, or only a state’s right to arm a militia.

While statistics show that overall violent crime numbers are down in most big cities around the country, there has been an increase in crime in Washington DC, Cleveland and Baltimore. In the nation’s capital there were 181 murders in 2007.

The Brady gun control movement is less than thrilled.

Dennis A. Henigan, of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says that the “whole purpose of the litigation is to achieve a Supreme Court precedent that they will use to attack many other laws.”

“This will inspire years and years of litigation and undercut the network of gun laws,” he said.

Haven’t seen the opinion yet, but will UPDATE when I find it available online. I suspect it’s the usual suspects on each side, with Justice Kennedy toeing the conservative line on this one. But not confirmed.

UPDATE 1: It was as suspected, Kennedy voting with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Scalia wrote the opinon for the majority. Stevens wrote for dissenting justices with Breyer putting in an additional dissent. Still looking for links to all opinions.

Per the AP news:

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Per a CNN article, this is the first head on collision for the justices and the scope of interpretation for 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.