Gun Rights Policies with John Snyder: Obama Wars Against Religion and Gun Ownership

Town Hall Reports What We Are All Thinking

This week the headline on Town Hall said what we were already thinking in regards to “Fast and Furious: Democrats Fully Engaged in Fast and Furious Coverup.” Writer Katie Pavlich noted:

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are officially trying to cover for Attorney General Eric Holder just before he testifies on Thursday about Operation Fast and Furious, with anti-Second Amendment Ranking Member Elijah Cummings leading the way. Last night, Cummings released a 95 page waste of paper and taxpayer money report, alleging that top Justice Department officials did not authorize the program, despite evidence showing otherwise. The report tries to pin the blame back on a few “rogue” managers in the ATF Phoenix Field Division. This is the same argument we’ve heard since the beginning of the scandal: it was a local operation, nobody important knew anything.

The media has tried to Blame Bush, and if during the Bush administration tried to pass the buck to the local ATF office there would be full on media outrage. But one thing that Pavlich has failed to note is that the media accepts this coverup because it is so much better than reporting the truth.

Orlando Sentinel Editorial Misses the Point on “Guns rule”

This week writing for the Orlando Sentinel, Leonard Pitts offered his thoughts, “For worse or worst, guns rule.” He writes:

In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people.

So it was painful to watch last week as the will of the people was overturned and one of Arizona’s duly elected representatives was forced from office. It wasn’t a recall vote or scandal that did it. No, the people’s will was overturned by a gun.

Here we go, another anti-gun type who somehow thinks the “will of the people” must be for gun control, but somehow the gun lobby has too much power. The irony here is that he even says, “In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people,” so why doesn’t he accept that the will of the people is for their Second Amendment rights?

And normally we don’t respond to editorials, but Pitts is ripe with errors, half-truths and utter misunderstandings. So much so we’ll take them one at a time. He notes:

This episode (in Tucson) joins a long list of elections overturned and social movements derailed by men with guns, as in the shootings of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Huey Long, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, the Kennedy brothers, George Wallace, George Moscone, Harvey Milk andMartin Luther King Jr. Somehow, people who should never have guns never have trouble getting them. John Kennedy’s assassin, a disaffected former Marine who had once defected to the Soviet Union, bought his by mail order. King’s assassin, a wanted fugitive, bought his over the counter.

Today, you cannot easily buy a gun mail order without a Federal Firearms License. Either Pitt doesn’t know this or chose to ignore this fact, but it does deflate his argument. Likewise, background checks are now done when buying a “gun over the counter.” The vast majority of crimes are committed with “illegal guns,” so how does changing the laws as they have been changed really going to stop gun violence?

Likewise, Pitt doesn’t note the cases where guns have been used in self defense? He chooses to ignore such examples as well. Not exactly the fairest argument but we’ll move on. Pitts adds:

After all, the solution here is not rocket science.

We need meaningful background checks on all gun purchases — no loopholes. A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period.

Actually we have these background checks in place, with a few exceptions. But it wasn’t actually a loophole that allowed Jared Lee Loughner to obtain a gun. It was a failure in the mental health system, not the background check system. So here we agree, a mentally unstable man should not have access to a gun, but why blame gun laws when he did everything legally?

Pitts also adds:

We need to ban fully automatic weapons from private use. The hunter who needs a gun that fires hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t much of a hunter. Read more

New Jersey Second Amendment Society Supports Starbucks on February 14th

Manahawkin, NJ – The New Jersey Second Amendment Society announced it will be joining many national freedom and rights groups in supporting Starbucks on February 14th.

“While some organizations have chosen to boycott Starbucks for their policies,” says Frank Jack Fiamingo, President of the NJ2AS, “we choose to support those businesses that support freedom and individual choice rather than yielding to the desires of the few who would strip law abiding citizens of rights under the guise of safety.”

Fiamingo continues, “Unlike a number of large restaurant entities Starbucks has chosen to defer to local laws regarding the right to keep and bear arms on their premises. This support of the rights of the law abiding people patronizing Starbucks is to be commended. We are pleased to see Starbucks take this common sense approach rather than cowering to the whims of the many anti freedom groups that choose to focus on the Second Amendment as their avenue for more intrusive and nanny state government and corporate policies.”

The New Jersey Second Amendment Society (http://www.NJ2AS.com) is a no compromise defender of the right to keep and bear arms formed to promote those rights protected under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States within the legislature and the community.

NRA News: The Gun Store’s Chris Irwin Expresses His Disappointment with the UFC and Fox

Cam Edwards talks to Chris Irwin from The Gun Store in Las Vegas

NY Post: “A Fast & Furious fib”

Could it be that Eric Holder was lying? Actually we already think most of what comes of his mouth comes out of another part of a male cow, but that’s not just our opinion it seems. Writing for The New York Post over the weekend, Michael A. Walsh offered this commentary:

It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup, goes the old Washington cliché. In the case of the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, it’s both.
As Attorney General Eric Holder gets ready to face more congressional grilling Thursday, something’s clearly rotten at the Justice Department. The stench goes all the way to the top — to Holder.

Walsh noted that according to new emails Holder had known about Fast and Furious all along. Walsh closes this piece noting:

With a tough re-election fight, President Obama doesn’t need F&F to become a campaign issue. But surely even he realizes that the nation has had enough of Holder’s polarizing tenure at Justice. Given a choice between himself and Holder . . . well, there’s always room for one more under the Obama bus.

We agree with Walsh, except we have to note… the media has been mum on this story. The mainstream media doesn’t want this story to get out. And that makes it all the more important for the story to be told.

New York Times Editorial Suggests “gun lobby’s wrath”

The New York Times issued a farewell to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last week, and we have to ask – why? We sort of know the answer, as it allows the Times’ editors a chance to climb on the soap box yet again, let’s keep in mind that Ms. Giffords didn’t represent the people of New York City or even New York State.

The editors of course tried to once again blame the guns and did some with the usual misreporting:

Ringing vows were made immediately after the Tucson rampage to ban the high-volume ammunition clips used by the gunman, to prod states to submit names of the mentally disturbed to the federal watch list for gun sales, and to plug the notorious gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy high-powered military weapons without a background check. None of those have happened. Democrats, who once had the good sense to pass a ban on assault rifles, no longer fight for its renewal, wary of the gun lobby’s wrath. President Obama gave a stirring speech after the Tucson shootings, but the White House has said and done too little about gun control since then.

Our first point, yes this is an editorial and opinions are opinions. But facts don’t lie – and this editorial has one of the facts wrong. It isn’t an outright lie, but it is done to make a point. Namely the statement: “high-powered military weapons,” which isn’t fair. First, the shooter in Tucson had no such firearm. So what does it have to do with this piece?

But there is also the point of “high-powered military weapons” that suggests that the guns most can actually buy at gun-shows are “military weapons,” which they are not. The guns are civilian versions and there is a huge difference whether the editors at the Times like it or not!

Next, we note “wary of the gun lobby’s wrath.” What does this mean? It almost suggests as if the gun lobby would use said “military weapons” in a reprisal. But that’s not the case. What the gun lobby would do is stir up voters, who would send President Obama and other anti-gun types packing. But isn’t that how lobbyists are supposed to work? Isn’t that their job whether we like it or not? And at the end of the day it isn’t the majority of voters casting their ballot on the issue? Why is this point always lost in these arguments.

The paper adds:

Ms. Giffords, a supporter of gun rights, was sent off with good wishes from lawmakers who could have done something to stem the carnage. “I will recover and will return,” Ms. Gifford vowed in a her resignation letter, which was read by a colleague. Her departure offered a tragic display of how easily a brilliant career in public service was cut short because of the nation’s inadequate gun laws.

Couldn’t it be that the nation’s mental health system is what really failed here? This argument blames the guns, and whether the Times likes it or there are a lot of guns out there, so the laws seem to be fairly adequate when all is said and done. Tragedies happen, but we don’t try to ban everything.

Will cruise ships be banned because of the recent disaster in Italy? Were airplanes banned because of 9/11? Are cars or even alcohol banned because of drunk drivers? It is such an interesting argument to make, but banning the item involved is only done when it includes guns.

Gun Rights Policies with John Snyder: Religious, Gun Rights Advocates Must Unite Against Obama on Civil Rights

Gun Rights Policies with John Snyder:

Gun rights advicates have been wise to Obama from the start, and religious leaders are now beging to wake up to the threat of this president.

Civil rights advocates of various interests must unite against Obama because he cannot be trusted to uphold civil rights.

GunRightsPolicies.org
John M. Snyder
Manager
Telum Associates, LLC
Arlington, VA
202-239-8005

About John Snyder:
Named the Gun Dean by Human Events, “the senior rights activist in Washington” by Shotgun News, a “champion of the right to self-defense” by The Washington Times, and “dean of gun lobbyists” by The Washington Post and The New York Times, John M. Snyder has spent 45 years as a proponent of the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms as a National Rifle Association editor, public affairs director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation, and founder of www.GunRightsPolicies.org.

A former Jesuit seminarian, Snyder is founder/manager of Telum Associates, LL.C., founder/chairman of the St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc., a director of Council for America, and serves on the boards of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and the American Federation of Police & Concerned Citizens. He is also the author of the book Gun Saint. Visit: www.GunRightsPolicies.org

Virginia Citizens Defense League Legislative Update & Action Items 1-26-12

Virginia Citizens Defense League:

Yesterday the Senate Courts of Justice Committee heard a bunch of gun bills and some important ones, like the repeal of One Handgun a Month and repeal of Fingerprinting for CHP applicants, passed out of committee. Read more

San Antonio Columnist: The Second Amendment’s Faustian bargain

There have been calls for “reasonable gun control,” and this week O. Richardo Pimentel, writing for The San Antonio Express-News offered an interesting twist in a column titled, “The Second Amendment’s Faustian bargain.”

He tells the story of how guns can be used to save as well as take lives. He makes a compelling argument, writing:

Everyone should be pleased by innocent lives saved as a side effect of gun ownership for the right people. But we can still recognize that the same laws that allow that also create a climate of too many guns in the wrong hands — and innocent lives taken.

This is true, and while we respect his opinion, the issue we have is that “reasonable gun control” would limit what the law-abiding can buy, while criminals would simply ignore the law.

As we long have tried to argue, the problem with this view is that the Second Amendment isn’t what gives criminals access to guns. There is no Amendment that makes murder legal, yet it still happens. There is no Amendment that grants the right for drug addiction, yet we still have drug addicts. So why would new gun laws stop criminals?

So no, we don’t think this is a Faustian bargain. Selling our souls for safety in the guise of gun control would be the real Faustian bargain.

« Previous Page — Next Page »