Obama, Gun Rights, Abortion, and the Culture of Death
The Obama administration promotion of abortion and opposition to gun rights gives Americans reason to oppose his reelection.
Survival Mom Tells Why Families Should Have a Gun
Can you ever be fully prepared for disaster? The answer is probably not, but if you take the time to ensure that you have enough food and water, medicine, clothing and other essentials, the question must be asked to you need a gun?
Lisa Bedford, the Survival Mom, offered a sobering thought this week:
It’s shocking to read comments from non-preppers and a few preppers, alike, that part of their survival plan is to take by force the food and supplies they need from people who have prepared. If you are putting time, effort, and money into supplies that will help your family survive future crises, then you absolutely must include firearms as a layer in personal and home safety.
It is a sad but very apt statement, and just one of many excellent arguments made by Bedford.
Huff and Puff: NRA Becomes Toxic When Exposed to Light
Writing for the Huffington Post, Daniel Gross, President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence suggested this week “NRA Becomes Toxic When Exposed to Light.”
We see he wasted no time firing a salvo at the NRA. Gross writes:
In the weeks since George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin, corporate America has been force fed a crash survey of public opinion on gun policy. Some of America’s most popular –and message-savvy — companies announced their swift verdict when they, and then ALEC, withdrew support for the National Rifle Association’s paranoid, violent agenda.
He adds:
You see, the NRA and its political minions like to work in the shadows. They cannot credibly explain to voters why they support loopholes that allow criminals to buy guns without background checks, or allow terrorists to buy all the AK-47s they desire. Secrecy and cynicism are their greatest allies.
This is a shameful argument. The NRA is not trying to allow criminals to buy guns without background checks or aid terrorists in any way. This of noxious notion that the NRA supports terrorists is both shameful and factually inaccurate.
For the record the NRA has merely stated that those on a terrorist watch list should not be prevented from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I imagine if someone were stripped of their First Amendment rights for being on the no-fly list, the ACLU and other civil rights groups would be up in arms. The truth is that this is merely as it seems, a watchlist, and those on it have not been charged or arrested for crime.
It seems that Gross and his ilk would strip away the constitutional rights of Americans simply because there is a chance, no matter how slim, that they might be criminals.
NY Times Tries to Explain the NRA
We often note that we believe The New York Times is out of touch on many issues, and especially firearms. They certainly showed up this week in an op-ed titled. “I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me.” The writer, Lily Raff McCaulou noted:
I’m a hunter and a sportswoman. I own guns, but not for self-defense. I support gun control laws. I would happily vote to repeal the Stand Your Ground law in my home state of Oregon. In other words, the N.R.A. does not represent me.
Among gun owners, I’m hardly alone. The N.R.A. has just over four million members. That sounds like a lot until you consider that about one in five American adults own one or more guns. That’s nearly 50 million people. That means roughly 90 percent of gun owners do not belong to the N.R.A.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that every N.R.A. member is also a hunter — which is highly unlikely, considering that the most comprehensive national survey of firearm ownership to date found that only 35 percent of gun-owning households say they hunt. Even then, the N.R.A. would represent only about one-third of all hunters in the United States.
The writer makes some interesting points, and she is correct that most gun owners are not members of the NRA, it also seems to us that she believes guns are really only meant for hunting. But what about those gun owners that don’t hunt? Do we not matter?
She added:
Even if the N.R.A.’s worst nightmare were to come true nationwide — expanded background checks, mandatory waiting periods, limits to the number of guns purchased by an individual per month — hunting could continue as it has for more than a century, with rifles and shotguns.
This probably is true, and hunting would likely continue. But again not all of us are hunters, a point that surely doesn’t matter to her.
Our final response would be, maybe we don’t hunt, but was most important is the Second Amendment is for me.
Robert Rector Aims at Ted Nugent
Writing for the Pasadena Star – News, Robert Rector fires a salvo at Ted Nugent. Along the way he made a number of questionable statements:
Nugent doesn’t just bear arms. He carries more weaponry than the National Guard.
Of course we assume Rector is joking, but does it matter if this statement is even true? Time and time again, anti-gun types like to question how many firearms in individual mail. This is done despite the fact that the Second Amendment places no restrictions.
Rector added:
For the record, Obama has barely mentioned gun control in his four years in office. In fact, his supporters are critical of him for not taking a stronger anti-gun stance.
This has been widely stated, but is not entirely accurate. The president did call a White House summit to address “reasonable gun control,” and told Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control but “under the radar.”
Rector further noted:
He has said that he supports the Second Amendment but also backs local gun control ordinances such as the one that exists – for good reason – in Washington, D.C.
Why is a local gun-control ordinance good? This is something Rector doesn’t explain. These ordinances only affect the law-abiding. This is something anti-gun types fail to understand, and why anti-gun control can be seen as an assault on the Second Amendment.
The National Association for Gun Rights: CISPA Putting Gun Owner Privacy At Stake
The National Association for Gun Rights:
Congress is dangerously close to putting another nail in the coffin of your personal privacy on the internet . . .
. . . especially if you are an online purchaser of ammo or firearms-related items.
For nearly four years, gun owners have been considered “suspect” by an administration hell-bent on restricting gun rights.
And now, the Obama administration, working in conjunction with Democrats AND Republicans in Congress, may have found a way to do so all in the name of “cybersecurity.”
On Thursday, Congress is set to begin consideration of H.R. 3523, the “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011″ (CISPA).
Your action right now is vital to putting a stop to CISPA’s threat to the personal privacy of gun owners. Read more
Larry Elder says: Gun control opponents are wise to fear Obama
Writing for the Los Angeles daily news last week, columnist Larry Elder noted, “Gun control opponents are wise to fear Obama.” Elder noted:
If voters give Obama four more years, he will likely have two or more Supreme Court vacancies. One or two more left-wing justices, like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
And yet so many in the mainstream media like to suggest that Obama has done nothing to promote gun control. We say it’s probably just biding his time, and waiting for the right opportunity.
Valley Star Calls for Gun Control
This past weekend The Valley Star, a college paper of Los Angeles Valley College, suggested “Continued Lack of Gun Control Means No End to Tragic Campus Shootings.”
While we agree everyone should have a right to their own opinion, we note that this editorial offers a flawed argument. The writer notes:
The Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and Americans have taken full advantage of this right. There are currently around 270 million guns in America, nearly one for every person in this country. That is despite the fact that guns are created for only one purpose: to kill.
This is a simplistic view, as it is not true that guns are created for only killing. It disregards the fact that most law-abiding gun owners never fire there gun in anger.
The writer adds:
This is a violent country, but it doesn’t have to be. Fewer people should have guns, and there should be fewer guns available. Laws making it easier for people to obtain guns are the cause and not the solution to the problem of gun violence. And until people realize this, no one will be truly safe.
This is also a simplistic view, and an extremely idealistic view of America, and ignores the fact that laws that would make it harder to obtain guns will only affect the law-abiding. By arguing that no one will be truly safe without gun control assumes that criminals will stop being criminals, and heed the gun control laws. Until criminals stop being criminals, and terrorists stop being terrorists, and bad people stop doing bad things, no one will be truly safe.
Huff and Puff Rant Proves Why No Compromise is Possible
This week, writing for the Huffington Post “comedian” Dean Obeidallah asked “Why Would NRA Denounce Media Coverage of Trayvon Martin Case?” The answer should be obvious.
The media has covered the story in length, blaming the shooter – even before he had his day in court – and of course blame guns in general. But in this rant Obeidallah shows that he is just another anti-gun zealot, who doesn’t understand the issue.
Among his statements:
Did Mr. LaPierre offer any sympathy to Trayvon Martin’s family? No.
The tired cliché espoused by the NRA that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” should be retired. It is an over-simplification of a problem that doesn’t have easy answers.
There’s no doubt that both those who love guns and those who detest them, want to lower the number of people killed by guns each year. However, comments by the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre simply do not help us reach our common goal.
The big question is what are those common goals? We all want to see less gun violence, but the answer too often from the anti-gun crowd is simply gun control or a prohibition of firearms in general. Many anti-gun types feel there is not enough gun control, but the question is whether criminals, terrorists and other bad guys would heed the law anyway. Thus gun control would disarm the law-abiding, and do nothing to stop the violence.
So is the goal really about stopping gun violence, or just gun control?
CNN Columnist Says Ted Nugent Should Be in Jail
Many vile, hateful and just plain disrespectful things were said about former President George W. Bush. This week liberal news talker Mike Malloy suggested that it was wrong to give former VP Dick Cheney a new heart, and implied the man should’ve been left to die.
Not because he doesn’t like Barack Obama but because he got up in front of a group of people and insinuated he would attempt to assassinate Obama if he’s re-elected. Or let’s put it this way: A man with a truckload of guns has threatened the life of our president while the country’s at war.
And yet the media pretends there isn’t a liberal bias.
