kj1 wrote:
> [kj1 note: the Swiss speak many languages ... Swiss, German, SwissGerman,
> etc.]
>
>
>
>> -----Forwarded Message-----
>>
>>> Sent: Nov 22, 2009 7:52 PM
>>> Subject: Swiss Citizen rifles
>>>
>>> CAUTION!
>>> The Swiss citizens in this story almost certainly speak some (shudder)
>>> French! They also speak German and some local gibberish as well.
>>>
Shudder that they speak French? At least the French have the stones to
act in their own interests and say the hell with "public" opinion.
--
Kurt Feltenberger
kurt@.../kfeltenberger@...http://www.casademon.org
“Before today, I was scared to live, after today, I'm scared I'm not living
enough." - Me
[kj1 note: the Swiss speak many languages ... Swiss, German, SwissGerman,
etc.]
> -----Forwarded Message-----
>>Sent: Nov 22, 2009 7:52 PM
>>Subject: Swiss Citizen rifles
>>
>>CAUTION!
>>The Swiss citizens in this story almost certainly speak some (shudder)
>>French! They also speak German and some local gibberish as well.
>>
>>Seriously, this is a good vid clip:
>>
>>Swiss Citizen rifles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g
>>
>>
>>RLTW!
>>Kent
>>
Pro2Am@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Wha’s worse than an anti-gun liberal?
>
> Simple: an anti-gun TV host masquerading as a gun rights
> supporter.
>
> Jim Darnell is a prime example of that.
>
> Mr. Darnell, the host of a syndicated outdoors television show /"God's
> Great Outdoors"/ and
>
> author of a weekly outdoor column, has joined the ranks of noted
> quisling Jim Zumbo by calling the manufacture of AR-15 sporting rifles
> a “big mistake.”
>
> Darnell’s column, which called the production of AR-15 style rifles a
> “big mistake,” was scrubbed from his website, shortly after it was
> published. Darnell went on to claim that the production of AR-15
> style rifles for hunting only encourages and angers the anti-gunners.
> He concludes that bolt action rifles should be used for hunting
> because they’re safe and/ *politically correct*/.
>
Rather than knee jerking into a frothing mouth stupor, how about
providing a link to what he actually said?
--
Kurt Feltenberger
kurt@.../kfeltenberger@...http://www.casademon.org
“Before today, I was scared to live, after today, I'm scared I'm not living
enough." - Me
Simple: an anti-gun TV host masquerading as a gun rights supporter.
Jim Darnell is a prime example of that.
Mr. Darnell, the host of a syndicated outdoors television show "God's Great Outdoors" and
author of a weekly outdoor column, has joined the ranks of noted quisling Jim Zumbo by calling the manufacture of AR-15 sporting rifles a “big mistake.”
Darnell’s column, which called the production of AR-15 style rifles a “big mistake,” was scrubbed from his website, shortly after it was published. Darnell went on to claim that the production of AR-15 style rifles for hunting only encourages and angers the anti-gunners. He concludes that bolt action rifles should be used for hunting because they’re safe andpolitically correct.
By conceding that the very possession of AR-15 style rifles is a mistake, Darnell gives the anti-gunners a foothold to justify banning other types of firearms. Using his own argument, Mr. Darnell's precious bolt action hunting rifles would be reclassified by the anti-gunners as high-powered sniper rifles, and therefore are a menace to society.
Darnell’s argument is as foolish and naive as it is dangerous. Gun rights activists must not give a single inch to the anti-gun liberals in Washington D.C. and in state capitals across the country. If we give them an inch, they will take a yard, and pretty soon we've been pushed a mile.
Urgent Calls Needed Against ObamaCare -- Vote is scheduled for tomorrow night
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://gunowners.org
Friday, November 20, 2009
Tomorrow will be as important a day as any in our lifetimes in determining whether the anti-gun health care bill moves forward.
The key vote will be on shutting down a Republican filibuster of the ObamaCare bill, HR 3590. In the Senate, we are faced with a health care bill that:
* Costs $2.5 trillion during its first ten years of full implementation (2014-2023);
* Increases insurance premiums and imposes $376 billion in tax increases -- many on the middle class; and
* Cuts Medicare by $465 billion, while increasing health costs by over $100 billion.
Fox News is reporting today that the word "tax" appears 183 times in the health care bill. Is Obama serious? Is that what he and Reid want to do to us in the midst of a recession?
Of course, all this increased spending -- and taxes -- means that you will have less money to spend on pursuing your real passions: like providing for your family and purchasing guns and ammunition!
The strategy in the Senate is to cram this bill down the American people's throats before we have a chance to fully read and evaluate it. And the vote on Saturday at 8:00 p.m. will determine whether, at least initially, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be able to get away with this.
Gun Owners of America has already gone into several states represented by key Democrats who will be central to the Saturday vote. But this is sufficiently important that all 100 senators need to know where we stand.
Finally, as we have mentioned several times in the past, the mandates in the legislation will most likely dump your gun-related health data into a government database that was created in section 13001 of the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.
And, the special "wellness and prevention" programs (inserted by Section 1001 of the bill as part of a new Section 2717 in the Public Health Services Act) would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles -- and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from decreeing that "no guns" is somehow healthier.
We all need to contact our Senators right away.
Do you want left-wing bureaucrats appointed by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid determining whether you should own a gun via the health care system?
If not, then you need to call right away. Our gun rights -- and the fate of our economy -- are hanging in the balance.
ACTION: Call your two U.S. Senators. Please urge them to vote against "cloture" on the "motion to proceed" to HR 3590.
You can call your Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762. The phones are ringing off the hook right now on Capitol Hill. More likely than not, you will have to try several times because the circuits have been overloaded.
But don't be discouraged... keep calling!
Also, ask your wife, your relatives, your neighbors, your church -- everyone, short of your dog -- to do the same. This is crunch time!
NOTE: The alternate, non toll-free, number is 202-224-3121.
----- TALKING POINTS -----
1) Support the filibuster of HR 3590 by voting NO on cloture.
2) Socialized health care is too expensive. I would rather spend my money the way I want to spend it!
3) Increasing my taxes during a recession is insane.
4) This bill will threaten to register me as a gun owner, because the mandates in this bill will force my medical information into the database that was created by the stimulus bill.
5) Vote NO on this bill!
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
This is Crunch Time on ObamaCare -- Urge Senator Evan Bayh to tell Harry Reid "I'm not your puppet!"
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://gunowners.org
Thursday, November 19, 2009
This week will be as important as any week in our lifetime in determining whether the anti-gun health care bill moves forward.
As a result of the mandates in the Senate bill, all of your gun-related health data can be dumped into a government database that was created in section 13001 of the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.
The vote this week will be on shutting down a Republican filibuster of the bill. And the key votes will be five Democrats: Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and your very own Evan Bayh of Indiana.
The Senate and the House have a great tradition of conservative Democrats: Democratic Senators Jim Allen of Alabama, Harry Byrd, Jr., of Virginia, and (former Democratic) Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia were, in their day, as pro-gun and fiscally responsible as any Republican.
The question is whether any conservative or even "moderate" Democrats survive, or whether we are left with a bunch of cowards who will do whatever their leftist leadership demands of them.
In the House, every evidence is that the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" were nothing but a stable of Pelosi puppets. The Blue Dogs whined and complained about the deficit spending created by the bill, but when push came to shove, Pelosi was able to get just enough of the supposedly moderate Democrats to do her bidding and support her bill.
Is this the case in the Senate as well?
1) The "moderate" Democrats in the Senate have demanded seventy-two hours to examine any legislative language -- and a CBO assessment based on final legislative language. They will not get this before this week's vote. The question is whether they were serious.
2) The "moderate" Democrats in the Senate have demanded a bill which does not send the deficit spiraling into the stratosphere. The Reid bill will add over a hundred billion dollars to the deficit, when you consider the $210-247 billion Medicare "fix" Reid is trying to sneak through on separate legislation. It will add over A HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS TO THE DEFICIT IF YOU DISCOUNT THE PHONY MEDICARE "CUTS." Was the promise worth the paper it was written on?
3) The "moderate" Democrats have promised a bill which will not tax the middle class. But the Reid bill will impose enormous costs and taxes -- not only on the middle class, but on the sick and elderly.
This is a week in which a handful of senators will make history. Will they be heroes and champions? Or liars and cowards? We will see.
They are being told that this is their chance to "make history." But history seldom rewards those who break their word because they are frightened of their masters.
ACTION: Write Senator Evan Bayh. Tell him to vote against "cloture" on the "motion to proceed" to the Senate ObamaCare bill.
This week will be as important as any week in our lifetime in determining whether the anti-gun health care bill moves forward.
As a result of the mandates in the Senate bill, all my gun-related health data can be dumped into a government database that was created in section 13001 of the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.
The vote this week will be on shutting down a Republican filibuster of the motion to bring the bill up -- "cloture" on the "motion to proceed."
The Senate and the House have a great tradition of conservative Democrats. The question is whether any conservative or even "moderate" Democrats will remain independent, or whether they will just do whatever their leftist leadership demands of them.
In the House, every evidence is that the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" were nothing but a stable of Pelosi puppets. And the only question was which ones Pelosi would choose to dance at the end of their strings, and which would be allowed to lie crumpled up in the corner.
Is this the case in the Senate as well?
1) You have demanded seventy-two hours to examine any legislative language -- and a CBO assessment based on final legislative language. You will not get this before this week's vote. The question is whether you were serious.
2) You have demanded a bill which does not send the deficit spiraling into the stratosphere. The Reid bill will add over a hundred billion dollars to the deficit, when you consider the $210-247 billion Medicare "fix" Reid is trying to sneak through on separate Legislation (S. 1776).
It will add over A HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS TO THE DEFICIT IF YOU DISCOUNT THE PHONY MEDICARE "CUTS." Was your promise worth the paper it was written on?
3) You have promised a bill which will not tax the middle class. But the Reid bill will impose enormous costs and taxes -- not only on the middle class, but on the sick and elderly. Did you mean what you said?
This is a week in which you will make history. Will you be a hero and a champion? Or a Reid puppet? I have faith that you will live up to your calling.
You are being told that this is your chance to "make history." But history seldom rewards cowards who break their word because they are frightened by their "masters."
Please, show me and the people who elected you that you are the hero we elected you to be. Vote against "cloture" on the anti-gun health care bill.
Sincerely,
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.
That’s why it’s vital you sign special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty!”
So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.
But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!
You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.
Ever since it’s founding almost 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.
To the petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” -- it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe.
These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.
And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.
You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.
The fact is, the last thing the gun-grabbers in the U.N. and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to react and mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.
They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into law since the mid-1990s.
But this time, time won’t be on our side.
In fact, we’re likely to only have a few days or weeks to defeat the treaty.
Worse, there’s no longer any pro-gun Republican Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.
There’s no longer any Republican in the White House who has stated opposition to the treaty.
And you and I know good and well how Germany, Great Britain, France, Communist China or the rest of the anti-gun members of the United Nations are going to vote.
So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE of stopping the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.
As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.
With 40 Republicans, that should be easy, right?
Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
First, you know just as well as I do that not all the remaining Republicans in the Senate are “pro-gun” in any sense of the term.
Second, even with the partisan rancor in Washington, D.C., many GOP Senators get “queasy” about killing treaties for fear of “embarrassing” the President -- especially with “international prestige” at stake.
They look at ratifying treaties much like approving Presidents’ Supreme Court nominees.
And remember, there were NINE Republicans who voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
A dozen more GOP Senators only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.
So if we’re going to defeat the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” we have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!
And also, if you can, I hope you’ll agree to make a generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or even just $35.
With your generous contribution, I’ll immediately begin contacting Second Amendment supporters through mail, phones and e-mail to turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.
Tops on the list are the “usual suspects” like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lindsay Graham and the rest of the weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate whose votes we can never count on.
I also want to begin contacting gun owners in states represented by key Democrats -- like Senators John Tester and Max Baucus of Montana, Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.
And finally, I’ve designed a “special” hard-hitting program especially for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to let Nevada gun owners know exactly what he and his anti-gun pals have planned for you and me.
Facing a tough reelection in 2010, Senator Reid knows he’s already skating on thin ice with Nevada voters.
So you and I could end up putting the final nail in his political coffin -- if I can pull out all the stops.
Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Billboards. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting newspaper, radio and TV ads. The whole nine yards.
Of course, if I can raise enough resources, my goal is to expand this full program to ALL our target states.
But that’s not going to be cheap, and we may not have much time.
In fact, if we’re going to defeat the UN’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty,” we have to start NOW!
So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators.
And if you possibly can, please agree to make a contribution of $200, $150, $100, or even just $35.
Every petition and every dollar count in this fight.
So please sign the petition and include your most generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or $35 TODAY.
In Liberty, Dudley Brown Executive Director National Association for Gun Rights
P.S. The Obama Administration just announced they would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new GLOBAL, “Small Arms Treaty.”
That’s why its vital you and I fight back IMMEDIATELY.
Please click here to sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty.”
And if you can, please make a generous contribution of $250, $150, $100 or $35 right away!
To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.
To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.
Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."
The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.
In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.
"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.
"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."
Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.
Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.
He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".
Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"
To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."
Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.
But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.
He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.
"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.
"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"
Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.
Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."
IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM! Please visit: www.operationshoebox.com
I think that, no matter what kind of court he may be tried in, he
will get the death penalty (irrespective of his now-crippled bodily
status). Of the available courts, the military court martial should
result in less delay about getting to the execution because the
military has a set number of appeals built-in and I doubt they will
countenance any more. Civil courts in general have many many more
opportunities for appeals and thus delays.
In addition to that, officially he was in the Army, he killed Army
people, on an Army facility - and that means he will be tried by the
Army and executed by the Army. No civilian court can claim
jurisdiction. It is totally an internal Army affair.
Personally, I hope they use a firing squad, but they'll probably just hang him.
Best regards
John
At 03:01 AM 11/16/2009, George wrote:
>I expect he will be sentenced to death if found competent for trial.
>He killed 13 fellow soldiers in a premeditated attack. I don't see
>how he could avoid a death sentence. With that many deaths it should
>be a slam dunk. Anything else would spark tremendous outrage.
>
>I doubt any part of this will happen quickly though. First he has to
>be well enough for a trial. Second I am sure there will be a mental
>health evaluation; I don't know how I would bet on its outcome.
>Actually holding the court-martial would probably be the quickest
>part of the process. If found guilty there will automatically be an
>appeal, the military has many safeguards to protect the accused;
>probably because of past scandals involving other court-martials.
>
>There is one thing that could save his life; if he is indeed
>paralyzed I would expect some squeamishness about putting him to
>death. I read today that he has no feeling in his legs and pain in
>his hands. In some ways that seems like appropriate punishment
>except for the fact if he goes to Leavenworth our tax dollars will
>keep him fed and cared for until his death.
>
>George in Las Vegas
>
>
>
>
I expect he will be sentenced to death if found competent
for trial. He killed 13 fellow soldiers in a premeditated attack. I don’t
see how he could avoid a death sentence. With that many deaths it should be a
slam dunk. Anything else would spark tremendous outrage.
I doubt any part of this will happen quickly though. First
he has to be well enough for a trial. Second I am sure there will be a mental
health evaluation; I don’t know how I would bet on its outcome. Actually
holding the court-martial would probably be the quickest part of the process.
If found guilty there will automatically be an appeal, the military has many
safeguards to protect the accused; probably because of past scandals involving
other court-martials.
There is one thing that could save his life; if he is indeed
paralyzed I would expect some squeamishness about putting him to death. I read today
that he has no feeling in his legs and pain in his hands. In some ways that seems
like appropriate punishment except for the fact if he goes to Leavenworth our tax dollars will keep him fed
and cared for until his death.
Good stuff. I'll have to keep this. In the mean time, here's a good video on gun safety.
I like this guy.. he thinks like I do.. if your going to shoot them don't leave them standing.
Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch, is part drill instructor, and part stand-up comic. Here are a few of his observations on tactics, firearms, self defense and life as we know it in the civilized world.
"The handgun would not be my choice of weapon if I knew I was going to a fight. ...I'd choose a rifle, a shotgun, an RPG or an atomic bomb instead."
"The two most important rules in a gunfight are: always cheat and always win."
"Every time I teach a class, I discover I don't know something."
"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, cause it's gonna be empty."
"If you're not shootin', you should be loadin'. If you're not loadin, you should be movin', if you're not movin', someone's gonna cut your head off and put it on a stick."
"When you reload in low light encounters, don't put your flashlight in your back pocket. If you light yourself up, you'll look like an angel or the tooth fairy....and you're gonna be one of 'em pretty soon."
"Do something. It may be wrong, but do something."
"Nothing adds a little class to a sniper course like a babe in a Ghilliesuit."
"Shoot what's available, as long as it's available, until something else becomes available."
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for."
"Don't shoot fast, shoot good."
"You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or use any other word you think will work but I've found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much the universal language."
"You have the rest of your life to solve your problems. How long you live depends on how well you do it."
" You cannot save the planet. You may be able to save yourself and your family."
"Thunder Ranch will be here as long as you'll have us or until someone makes us go away and either way it will be exciting."
More Excellent Gun Wisdom....... The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.
4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model
1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'
6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.
7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'
8. Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it!
If you believe in the 2nd Amendment, please forward. 'The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.' -G. K. Chesterton
A people that values its privileges above its principles will soon lose both.
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.' ~ Thomas Jefferson
************************************* Disclaimer As owner and moderator of multiple lists I wish to say that just because I post something does not mean it is my thoughts and feelings..but neither does it mean it's NOT my opinion... I post diversity..conversation pieces, debate material... anything that might be of interest to any one on any particular list..... ...and I hate politics Thank-you.............. ************************************************* AMERIND BY BIRTH, SOUTHERN BY GRACE OF YAHWEH! ************************ In God We Trust. Do your best; let God do the rest. <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< I would rather live my life as if there is a God, And die to find out there isn't, Than live my life as if there isn't, And die to find out there is. *************** God does not always appear when we think He should, but He's never late <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
> Oh I forgot ..
> There is a sleeper cell here in the U.S.A.
> The F.B.I. claims it is so....
I know of two, anyway. The Republican Party and the Democrat Party.
-Rich---
The United States Constitution (c) 1791, All Rights Reserved
No arguments from me
you are probably correct but let me come at this from a different point of
view. The Army should proceed with a general courts-martial against Hasan
charging him with treason in a time of war, 13 counts of murder, 33 (or however
many wounded there are) counts of attempted murder and a hate crime (I really
hate this law but might as well use it). The murder charges along with the
treason charge carry the death penalty.
After the Army/Federal
Government has completed it’s prosecution of Hasan, found him guilty and
he has been sentenced to death the Great State of Texas would proceed to
prosecute Hasan for Murder, attempted murder and mass violence and we all know
what Texas does to criminals like Hasan. Between the Federal Government and the
State Hasan should see the Grim Reaper at some point in the hopefully not to
distant future. The Fed’s were able to execute McVeigh fairly swiftly we
need the same prosecutorial team to prosecute Hasan.
Steve in Colorado
From:Firearms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Firearms@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brightspot Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009
11:03 AM To:Firearms@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Firearms] Shiould the Ft.Hood
killer be tried in state court?
This being the only semi-political group I belong to,
i thought I'd say my piece, about this, here.
OK, I understand...he 'allegedly' killed military personnel, and was a
military personel, himself. And technically, the military is within it's
rights, to try him at a court-martial. But, if he is convicted[must preserve
the 'innocent until proven guilty' legal fiction], will he get the death
penalty. And even if that's the sentence, will it ever be carried out? I
understand that there is at least one individual, on Military 'death row',
who's been there, for 20 YEARS!
If he was tried in civilian court...well, FortHood is in Texas. When they sentence someone to death,
he(or she) DOES get executed[apparently]. And they don't seem to delay
anywhere near that long.
Frankly, I DON'T trust the military courts. Judging by the way the General
Casey has been commenting...downplaying the possibility that this act was
terrorism, I'm not to sanguine about the inevitability of a death sentence.
Maybe he'll clame NGI...and make it stick?? And if he did, and it did
stick...well, OBL could make the same claim too...for the same reason[is
shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while you're killing people a sign of
insantity? Perhaps some think so.
The problem is that the military seems more afraid of harming it's 'diversity'
instead of preventing a possible reocurrance of this event. Remember, they KNEW
about Hasan's Islamic 'eccentricities' long before he started shooting people
down. And this is why I consider the military courts a bit suspect.
Subject: [Firearms] Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court?
This being the only semi-political group I belong to, i thought I'd say my piece, about this, here.
OK, I understand...he 'allegedly' killed military personnel, and was a military personel, himself. And technically, the military is within it's rights, to try him at a court-martial. But, if he is convicted[must preserve the 'innocent until proven guilty' legal fiction], will he get the death penalty. And even if that's the sentence, will it ever be carried out? I understand that there is at least one individual, on Military 'death row', who's been there, for 20 YEARS!
If he was tried in civilian court...well, Fort Hood is in Texas. When they sentence someone to death, he(or she) DOES get executed[apparently]. And they don't seem to delay anywhere near that long.
Frankly, I DON'T trust the military courts. Judging by the way the General Casey has been commenting...downplaying the possibility that this act was terrorism, I'm not to sanguine about the inevitability of a death sentence. Maybe he'll clame NGI...and make it stick?? And if he did, and it did stick...well, OBL could make the same claim too...for the same reason[is shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while you're killing people a sign of insantity? Perhaps some think so.
The problem is that the military seems more afraid of harming it's 'diversity' instead of preventing a possible reocurrance of this event. Remember, they KNEW about Hasan's Islamic 'eccentricities' long before he started shooting people down. And this is why I consider the military courts a bit suspect.
Subject: [Firearms] Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court?
This being the only semi-political group I belong to, i thought I'd say my piece, about this, here.
OK, I understand...he 'allegedly' killed military personnel, and was a military personel, himself. And technically, the military is within it's rights, to try him at a court-martial. But, if he is convicted[must preserve the 'innocent until proven guilty' legal fiction], will he get the death penalty. And even if that's the sentence, will it ever be carried out? I understand that there is at least one individual, on Military 'death row', who's been there, for 20 YEARS!
If he was tried in civilian court...well, Fort Hood is in Texas. When they sentence someone to death, he(or she) DOES get executed[apparently]. And they don't seem to delay anywhere near that long.
Frankly, I DON'T trust the military courts. Judging by the way the General Casey has been commenting...downplaying the possibility that this act was terrorism, I'm not to sanguine about the inevitability of a death sentence. Maybe he'll clame NGI...and make it stick?? And if he did, and it did stick...well, OBL could make the same claim too...for the same reason[is shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while you're killing people a sign of insantity? Perhaps some think so.
The problem is that the military seems more afraid of harming it's 'diversity' instead of preventing a possible reocurrance of this event. Remember, they KNEW about Hasan's Islamic 'eccentricities' long before he started shooting people down. And this is why I consider the military courts a bit suspect.
This being the only semi-political group I belong to, i thought I'd say my
piece, about this, here.
OK, I understand...he 'allegedly' killed military personnel, and was a
military personel, himself. And technically, the military is within it's
rights, to try him at a court-martial. But, if he is convicted[must preserve
the 'innocent until proven guilty' legal fiction], will he get the death
penalty. And even if that's the sentence, will it ever be carried out? I
understand that there is at least one individual, on Military 'death row', who's
been there, for 20 YEARS!
If he was tried in civilian court...well, Fort Hood is in Texas. When they
sentence someone to death, he(or she) DOES get executed[apparently]. And they
don't seem to delay anywhere near that long.
Frankly, I DON'T trust the military courts. Judging by the way the General
Casey has been commenting...downplaying the possibility that this act was
terrorism, I'm not to sanguine about the inevitability of a death sentence.
Maybe he'll clame NGI...and make it stick?? And if he did, and it did
stick...well, OBL could make the same claim too...for the same reason[is
shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while you're killing people a sign of insantity?
Perhaps some think so.
The problem is that the military seems more afraid of harming it's
'diversity' instead of preventing a possible reocurrance of this event.
Remember, they KNEW about Hasan's Islamic 'eccentricities' long before he
started shooting people down. And this is why I consider the military courts a
bit suspect.
Obama Pushing a "Radical's Radical" to the Federal Bench -- Vote could come as early as Monday
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org
Thursday, November 12, 2009
He has been called "extreme" by some. But to others, he's beyond extreme... he's a "Radical's Radical."
Whatever he is, he could become President Obama's next choice for the federal judiciary.
This radical is Judge David Hamilton, and he's been nominated for a position on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hamilton has made many political enemies on the right, seeing that his politics are to the far left of the political spectrum. Oh yes, judges aren't supposed to be political, but this one has engaged in quite a bit of leftist activism.
His biggest opponent on Capitol Hill is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Based on his analysis of Hamilton, gun owners should be very concerned about a judge who is all to willing to "amend the Constitution." According to Senator Sessions:
Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution: "Judge S. Hugh Dillin of this court has said that part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution. We all do that every year in cases large and small." In explaining this statement to Senator Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law.
Of course, we have seen this pattern time and time again. Judges ignore the clear wording of the Constitution -- in essence, amending the Constitution through each new case they decide.
The courts then become the vehicle for rewriting the Second Amendment!
Not surprisingly, Judge Hamilton's politics are to the extreme, far left. He spent a brief stint as a fundraiser for ACORN, the organization that was an aggressive supporter of Barack Obama in the presidential election. In addition to all the evils surrounding ACORN is the fact that the organization has lobbied against Second Amendment rights -- as seen by the New Jersey chapter supporting a one-gun-a-month ordinance in Jersey City.
Certainly any judicial nomination put forth by our anti-gun President is suspect, but it's interesting to note who his chief backer is in the U.S. Senate. It's none other than Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who holds an "F" rating from Gun Owners of America.
Lugar has never failed to support one of Obama's anti-gun nominations, as evidenced by his votes for Attorney General Eric Holder, State Department lawyer Harold Koh, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the incredibly wacky Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein.
On policy questions, Senator Lugar is no better. To wit, he voted against repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC this year.
Considering Hamilton's extreme track record, it's no wonder that Senator Lugar -- in introducing Hamilton to his colleagues -- begged his fellow Senators to ignore the judge's policy views. Lugar asked them not to base their votes on "partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given judicial nominee will 'vote' on particular issues of public moment or controversy."
Instead, Lugar asked his colleagues "to evaluate judicial candidates on whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and temperament that Americans deserve from their judges...."
In other words, ignore Judge Hamilton's liberalism and just vote for him because he's so smart and because he's such a nice guy!
Judge Hamilton's rulings have made a lot of enemies on the political right, especially the one in Hinrichs v. Bosma where, according to a November 3 editorial in The Washington Times, he "prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ... yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah."
Gun owners have much to be concerned about, as well. Anytime a judge who believes in rewriting the Constitution is elevated to sit as an appellate judge, that's a scary thing -- especially given the fact that most cases never reach the U.S. Supreme Court and are, thus, decided at lower levels in the federal judiciary. ACTION: Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST Judge David Hamilton. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
I urge you to vote against Judge David Hamilton for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition to opposing his far left views, I don't appreciate his disdain for the Constitution.
To quote Senator Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution: 'Judge S. Hugh Dillin of this court has said that part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution. We all do that every year in cases large and small.' In explaining this statement to Senator Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law."
Of course, we have seen this pattern time and time again. Judges ignore the clear wording of the Constitution -- in essence, amending the Constitution through each new case they decide.
The courts then become the vehicle for rewriting the Second Amendment!
Not surprisingly, Judge Hamilton's written answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee show his lack of understanding regarding the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. While Hamilton cannot ignore what the Supreme Court said in DC v. Heller (2008), he refuses to admit that the individual right to keep and bear arms applies anywhere outside of Washington, D.C. -- instead, he just says he will rely on evolving "case law [as] developed in earlier incorporation cases."
Once again, evolving case law -- more often than not -- takes us away from what the Constitution actually says.
Please vote NO on David Hamilton.
Sincerely,
The Larry Pratt News Hour is carried by the Information Radio Network on Saturdays (rebroadcasts Sundays). The show is simulcast on the web at http://irnusaradio.com/ and previous episodes are archived at http://irnusaradio.com/our-programs/larry-pratt-news-hour with a number of listening formats, including podcasts, supported.
Recent guests and topics, among many others, have included:
* Jim Kouri -- Police Against Socialized Medicine * Chris Knox -- Neal Knox and the Gun Rights War * Mike Adams -- The Campus Wars Against Gun Owners
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
Apparently it’s not enough for our government that the heroes in America’s armed forces risk their lives overseas defending our freedom.
These days, our soldiers aren't even safe here at home stationed on secure military bases.
On November 5th, a lone gunman murdered 13 fully-trained, ready to deploy soldiers, and wounded 29 more, in the most shocking terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.
How was Nidal Hasan, a psychologist, able to take down so many trained soldiers? Because the government thinks its better to keep it’s armed service members unarmed . . .
That’s right. Our military men and woman are banned from carrying the weapons they are trained and trusted to use in the heat of combat.
President Clinton authored this asinine policy back in 1993 when he declared all military bases “Gun Free Zones.”
As you know, “Gun Free Zones” do nothing but assure criminals, and now terrorists, that they will find unarmed victims defenseless against a homicidal rampage.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I’d rather the soldiers delivered a barrage of bullets to end Hasan’s attack the second he opened fire.
I’d rather Hasan was dead and the heroes he murdered were still alive.
But because of Clinton’s ingenious policy of an unarmed armed forces, this psychopath methodically executed soldier after soldier before a local traffic cop could arrive on the scene.
If we didn't have “Gun Free Zones” and our armed forces were . . . I don't know . . . ARMED, Nadir Hasan would have met bullets instead of bodies.
On this Veteran’s Day, remember that the safety of our armed forces is of paramount importance whether it’s on the battlefield or here at home.
Please join the National Association of Gun Rights in our battle against "Gun Free Zones."
In Liberty, Dudley Brown Executive Director National Association for Gun Rights
P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights is entirely supported by individual gun rights advocates.
Please join the fight to end "Gun Free Zones" and restore the Second Amendment! Donate to NAGR today.
To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.
To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.
Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!
The subject matter presented in this video is invloved, so pay attention. I can't vouch 100% for its veracity, but pretty close (especially when considering Schumer's role in it). I imagine that it will also upset and anger many NRA members. But it must be considered in a factual, not emotionally reactive, light. I for one let my NRA membership expire several years ago, and for the same reason.
We Came Heartbreakingly Close to Killing ObamaCare in the House -- Pelosi "puppets" stab gun owners in the back
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
It would have been nice if we were celebrating victory on ObamaCare today -- and could turn our attention to other issues.
This was not to be, however, thanks to House Democrats who campaigned as "moderates," but in the end, danced at the end of Nancy Pelosi's strings.
Saturday, the House passed ObamaCare by a 220-215 vote. The bill now goes to the Senate, where South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham -- hardly a staunch conservative -- has pronounced it "dead on arrival."
We remain convinced that we can and will kill ObamaCare, but only if the grassroots keep the pressure on.
ACTION: Write your Representative. Thank him -- or reprimand him -- for his vote on ObamaCare.
----- Pre-written letter to Representatives voting pro-gun -----
Dear Representative:
While I was very disappointed to see that ObamaCare passed, I want to thank you for your vote against the bill.
Even still, I am disturbed by the games the House leadership has been playing. The press has widely reported that Nancy Pelosi had given "byes" to a number of moderate Democrats, who would have voted for ObamaCare had their votes been needed.
I find it disgusting that there are Representatives who voted "no" on the bill, but were waiting in the wings to vote "yes if their support was needed. After all, this legislation is built upon several lies:
* It was a lie that this $1.2 trillion bill came in under $900 billion and that it will not increase the deficit, once you consider the $210-247 billion companion bill Pelosi's trying to sneak through quietly.
* It was a lie that this bill will not raise taxes on the middle class -- with $160 billion in tax penalties and taxes on everything from wheelchairs to artificial limbs -- and that Americans will be able to keep the coverage they currently have under this bill.
* And it is a lie that supporters care anything about the Second Amendment, given their support of an ObamaCare bill which would put health-related gun information into a federal registry -- and would allow Obama to use insurance to go against gun owners, as State Farm and Prudential have done in the past.
I hope that you will continue to vote against this bill if it comes before you again.
Sincerely,
---- Pre-written letter to Representatives voting anti-gun ----
Dear Representative:
As far as I'm concerned, your vote for ObamaCare showed you are more interested in dancing at the end of Nancy Pelosi's strings, rather than upholding the Constitution and truly representing your district.
This legislation is built upon several lies:
* It was a lie that this $1.2 trillion bill came in under $900 billion and that it will not increase the deficit, once you consider the $210-247 billion companion bill Pelosi's trying to sneak through quietly.
* It was a lie that this bill will not raise taxes on the middle class -- with $160 billion in tax penalties and taxes on everything from wheelchairs to artificial limbs -- and that Americans will be able to keep the coverage they currently have under this bill.
* And it is a lie that supporters care anything about the Second Amendment, given their support of an ObamaCare bill which would put health-related gun information into a federal registry -- and would allow Obama to use insurance to go against gun owners, as State Farm and Prudential have done in the past.
I intend to let everyone I know -- my friends, my family, my church, and coworkers -- that you cannot be trusted.
Sincerely,
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@... with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or click on the link at bottom.
Make no mistake: Our Founders were onto something when they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms as the Second Amendment to our nation’s founding document, the United States Constitution.
Because the Second Amendment is part of our nation’s supreme law, attacking gun rights means attacking the very foundation of the country.
The gun grabbers know they have to deal with this supreme law at some point if they’re going to push their radical agenda through.
And so they’ve decided to rewrite the Bill of Rights to best suit their plans.
That’s right. In an attempt to circumvent our nation’s fundamental law, Barack Obama has rewritten his own version of the Bill of Rights and posted it on the White House website.
According to Obama, “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”
I don’t know about you, but my right to defend myself comes from my Creator -- not from government, not from some bureaucrat or politician, but from my very nature as a human being.
I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that redefining a fundamental right as a privilege is a very dangerous path to start down.
A right is inherent in our humanity and can never be taken away.
A privilege can be removed at the whim of one’s rulers.
But the President’s redefinition of our nation’s fundamental law isn’t enough for some anti-freedom zealots.
Gun grabbers in our government-run education system are now seeking to brainwash your children into accepting their anti-gun agenda -- also by rewriting the Bill of Rights.
Lesson plans in Garland, Texas, (Texas?! Really?!) now teach the Second Amendment by summarizing as follows, “Amendment 2: We can get permission to own weapons to protect ourselves.”
This couldn’t be any further from what the Second Amendment clearly states!
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I want you to call the White House and the Garland Independent School District and demand they restore the original language to the Second Amendment.
The White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111 GISD Superintendent Curtis Culwell: 972-487–3023
Tell them you will not stand for revisionist history or the weakening of our nation’s fundamental law. The Founding Fathers wrote it that way for a reason!
In Liberty, Dudley Brown Executive Director National Association for Gun Rights
To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.
To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.
Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!
Anti-gun ObamaCare bill Coming to the House Floor Very Soon
-- This week is the critical time to lobby your Representative!
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
We have reached the point in the battle over ObamaCare which will decide whether we win or lose.
The bill (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages long and weighs over 20 pounds. And even though a search of the bill will not reveal the word "gun" or "firearm," that doesn't mean the bill is neutral in regard to your Second Amendment rights.
For starters, this bill will -- like all the ObamaCare versions before it -- most likely result in all of your gun-related health data being dumped into a government database that was created in the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.
The bill will also create special "wellness" programs in section 112 which would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles -- and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Sebelius from decreeing that "no guns" is somehow healthier.
The bill purports to cut Medicare by $500 billion -- in a move which will result in massive rationing for seniors, while ultimately adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.
The bill will mandate that you purchase expensive government-approved policies and will (according to some studies) triple your insurance premiums through taxes and government requirements.
Of course, this all means that you will have less money to spend on pursuing your real passions -- like providing for your family and purchasing guns and ammunition!
ACTION: Write your Representative. Tell him or her to oppose this bill. Don't be discouraged by reports in the liberal media which have tried to tell us -- since January -- that this battle is hopeless. We can win, and, with your help, we will win.
The Pelosi health care bill, sponsored by Rep. Dingell, has now been made public.
For starters, this bill will -- like all the ObamaCare versions before it -- most likely result in all gun-related health data being dumped into the government database that was created in the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information that doctors have gleaned... or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude a person from owning firearms.
The bill will also create special "wellness" programs in section 112 which would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles -- and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Sebelius from decreeing that "no guns" is somehow healthier.
The bill will, according to some studies, triple insurance premiums through taxes and government requirements -- while mandating that Americans purchase expensive government-approved policies.
But, perhaps most instructively, there is this: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid promised to produce a $900 billion bill which would not add "one dime" to the deficit.
This bill will cost $1.3 trillion and will increase the deficit by AT LEAST $150 billion.
The only way Pelosi or the Congressional Budget Office can continue to pretend to the contrary is to take $247 billion in bill costs and slip them through in separate legislation.
In short, this process is fraudulent.
I have many issues with this legislation. And so I urge you to oppose this legislation and keep the government from inserting itself even more into my everyday life.
Sincerely,
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
For all Indiana residents. Everyone please forward this message far and wide.
Mike R.
=====================================
Sen. Evan Bayh Could be the Key Vote on ObamaCare -- He could determine whether anti-gun health care passes
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://gunowners.org
Friday, October 30, 2009
We are down to crunch time.
Within the next couple of weeks, we will know the fate of the ObamaCare bill to put your health-related gun data into a federal database. We will know whether insurance premiums and coverage suspensions on government-mandated policies will be used to "encourage" you to take your guns out of your home.
If you have been watching the news, you know that Obama & Co. are swinging for the fences. They want to pack as much of their liberal agenda as they can into the ObamaCare legislation.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is pushing a left-leaning, anti-gun bill. Dittos for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who is piecing together a bill that is so radical that he is even willing to blow off the votes of every single Republican in the Senate --- even the liberal Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.
This means that, with 60 Democrats and Independents in the Senate, they will need EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT AND INDEPENDENT VOTE to shut down the Republican filibuster of the bill. This is because it takes 60 votes in the Senate to shut down a filibuster.
But Reid is trying to pull a scam: He will push wavering Democrats to SUPPORT ObamaCare when it really counts (that is, when he needs 60 votes to kill the filibuster), but then he will allow the Dems to OPPOSE ObamaCare when such opposition is irrelevant (when only 51 votes are needed).
Specifically, Reid will try to tell your Senator, Evan Bayh, that he can fool Indiana voters by voting against FINAL PASSAGE of ObamaCare on a meaningless vote that only requires a simple majority. All the while, Reid seems to think that the American people are too dumb to know the difference.
But the FILIBUSTER VOTE is the only one that matters. Any senator who supports ObamaCare by voting to shut down the filibuster -- otherwise known as voting for "cloture" -- is pro-ObamaCare. And any attempt to pretend otherwise by switching positions on a meaningless final passage vote is, frankly, dishonest.
ACTION: Please contact Senator Evan Bayh. Ask your friends and family to do the same. Tell Sen. Bayh the only vote that matters is the CLOTURE VOTE ON THE "MOTION TO PROCEED."
We understand that Senator Harry Reid is trying to get you to vote for ObamaCare on the all-important cloture vote on the "motion to proceed."
No doubt, he will push you to SUPPORT ObamaCare when it really counts (that is, when he needs 60 votes to kill the filibuster), but to OPPOSE ObamaCare when such opposition is irrelevant (when only a simple majority is needed).
The 60-vote CLOTURE VOTE on the "motion to proceed" to the bill is the only vote that matters. We know that you are much too honorable to vote for cloture --- and then try to fool Indianans into thinking that you are against ObamaCare.
Sincerely,
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@... with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or click on the link at bottom.
--- On Thu, 10/22/09, Pro2Am@... <Pro2Am@...> wrote:
From: Pro2Am@... <Pro2Am@...> Subject: [Firearms] FBI Study On Cop Attackers ~ Ben English To: Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 6:22 PM
A very interesting report in more ways than one. It also demonstrates the wisdom, necessity, and practical advantages of 1) an armed citizenry and, 2) our 2nd Amendment in general. It isn't just law enforcement personnel who encounter these criminal thugs.
This was sent to me recently by Mr. Bill Roach, who is another retired peace officer here in Texas. In actuality, the findings noted in this article are not really that new. In fact, they mirror quite closely the same sort of study which the FBI published back in 1992. The booklet was entitled Killed In The Line Of Duty, and I use it as lecture material in the Crime In America course which I teach in our local high school. Some of the findings might surprise you.
Ben H. English
Ozona, Texas
New findings from FBI about cop attackers & their weapons New findings on how offenders train with, carry and deploy the weapons they use to attack police officers have emerged in a just-published, 5-year study by the FBI.
Among other things, the data reveal that most would-be cop killers:
show signs of being armed that officers miss
have more experience using deadly force in "street combat" than their intended victims;
practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;
have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger.
"If you hesitate," one told the study's researchers, "you're dead. You have the instinct or you don't. If you
don't, you're in trouble on the street.." These and other weapons-related findings comprise one chapter in a 180-page research summary called "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers." The study is the third in a series of long investigations into fatal and nonfatal attacks on POs by the FBI team of Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, clinical forensic psychologist, and Ed Davis, criminal investigative instructor, both with the Bureau's Behavioral Science Unit, and Charles Miller III, coordinator of the LEOs Killed and Assaulted program.
"Violent Encounters" also reports in detail on the personal characteristics of attacked officers and their assaulters, the role of perception
in life-threatening confrontations, the myths of memory that can hamper OIS investigations, the suicide-by-cop phenomenon, current training issues, and other matters relevant to officer survival. (Force Science News and our strategic partner PoliceOne.com will be reporting on more findings from this landmark study in future transmissions.) Commenting on the broad-based study, Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, called it "very challenging and insightful--important work that only a handful of gifted and experienced researchers could accomplish."
From a pool of more than 800 incidents, the researchers selected 40, involving 43 offenders (13 of them admitted gangbangers-drug traffickers) and 50 officers, for in-depth exploration. They visited crime scenes and extensively interviewed surviving officers and attackers alike, most of the latter in prison. Here are
highlights of what they learned about weapon selection, familiarity, transport and use by criminals attempting to murder cops, a small portion of the overall research:
Weapon Choice Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available "was the overriding factor in weapon choice," the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun "because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being."
Researcher Davis , in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers
interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."
Familiarity Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing "most of the time." Gang members especially started young. Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% "regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year," the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and "street corners in known drug-trafficking areas."
One spoke of being motivated to
improve his gun skills by his belief that officers "go to the range two, three times a week [and] practice arms so they can hit anything."
In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this "may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills," the study says.
The offender quoted above about his practice motivation, for example, fired 12 rounds at an officer, striking him 3 times. The officer fired 7 rounds, all misses.
More than 40% of the offenders had been involved in actual shooting confrontations before they feloniously assaulted an officer. Ten of these "street combat veterans," all from "inner-city, drug-trafficking
environments," had taken part in 5 or more "criminal firefight experiences" in their lifetime.
One reported that he was 14 when he was first shot on the street, "about 18 before a cop shot me." Another said getting shot was a pivotal experience "because I made up my mind no one was gonna shoot me again."
Again in contrast, only 8 of the 50 LEO victims had participated in a prior shooting; 1 had been involved in 2 previously, another in 3. Seven of the 8 had killed offenders.
Concealment The offenders said they most often hid guns on their person in the front waistband, with the groin area and the small of the back nearly tied for second place. Some occasionally gave their weapons to another person to carry, "most often a female companion."
None regularly used a holster, and about 40% at least sometimes carried a backup weapon.
In motor vehicles, they most often kept their firearm readily available on their person, or, less often, under the seat. In residences, most stashed their weapon under a pillow, on a nightstand, under the mattress--somewhere within immediate reach while in bed.
Almost all carried when on the move and strong majorities did so when socializing, committing crimes or being at home. About one-third brought weapons with them to work. Interestingly, the offenders in this study more commonly admitted having guns under all these circumstances than did offenders interviewed in the researchers' earlier 2 surveys, conducted in the 1980s and '90s.
According to Davis , "Male offenders said time and time again that female officers tend to search them more thoroughly than male officers. In prison, most of the offenders were more afraid to carry contraband or
weapons when a female CO was on duty."
On the street, however, both male and female officers too often regard female subjects "as less of a threat, assuming that they not going to have a gun," Davis said. In truth, the researchers concluded that more female offenders are armed today than 20 years ago--"not just female gang associates, but female offenders generally."
Shooting Style
Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, "claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights," the study says.
"They practice getting the gun out and using it," Davis explained. "They shoot for effect." Or as one of the offenders put it: "[W]e're not working with
no marksmanship..We just putting it in your direction, you know..It don't matter.as long as it's gonna hit you.if it's up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever..Once I squeeze and you fall, then.if I want to execute you, then I could go from there."
Hit Rate
More often than the officers they attacked, offenders delivered at least some rounds on target in their encounters. Nearly 70% of assailants were successful in that regard with handguns, compared to about 40% of the victim officers, the study found. (Efforts of offenders and officers to get on target were considered successful if any rounds struck, regardless of the number fired.)
Davis speculated that the offenders might have had an advantage because in all but 3 cases they
fired first, usually catching the officer by surprise. Indeed, the report points out, "10 of the total victim officers had been wounded [and thus impaired] before they returned gunfire at their attackers."
Missed Cues
Officers would less likely be caught off guard by attackers if they were more observant of indicators of concealed weapons, the study concludes. These particularly include manners of dress, ways of moving and unconscious gestures often related to carrying.
"Officers should look for unnatural protrusions or bulges in the waist, back and crotch areas," the study says, and watch for "shirts that appear rippled or wavy on one side of the body while the fabric on the other side appears smooth." In warm weather, multilayered clothing
inappropriate to the temperature may be a giveaway. On cold or rainy days, a subject's jacket hood may not be covering his head because it is being used to conceal a handgun.
Because they eschew holsters, offenders reported frequently touching a concealed gun with hands or arms "to assure themselves that it is still hidden, secure and accessible" and hasn't shifted. Such gestures are especially noticeable "whenever individuals change body positions, such as standing, sitting or exiting a vehicle." If they run, they may need to keep a constant grip on a hidden gun to control it.
Just as cops generally blade their body to make their sidearm less accessible, armed criminals "do the same in encounters with LEOs to ensure concealment and easy access."
An irony, Davis noted, is that officers who are assigned to look for concealed weapons, while working off-duty security at night clubs for instance, are often highly proficient at detecting
them. "But then when they go back to the street without that specific assignment, they seem to 'turn off' that skill," and thus are startled--sometimes fatally--when a suspect suddenly produces a weapon and attacks.
Mind-set
Thirty-six of the 50 officers in the study had "experienced hazardous situations where they had the legal authority" to use deadly force "but chose not to shoot." They averaged 4 such prior incidents before the encounters that the researchers investigated. "It appeared clear that none of these officers were willing to use deadly force against an offender if other options were available," the researchers concluded.
The offenders were of a different mind-set entirely. In fact, Davis said the study team "did not realize how cold
blooded the younger generation of offender is. They have been exposed to killing after killing, they fully expect to get killed and they don't hesitate to shoot anybody, including a police officer. They can go from riding down the street saying what a beautiful day it is to killing in the next instant."
"Offenders typically displayed no moral or ethical restraints in using firearms," the report states. "In fact, the street combat veterans survived by developing a shoot-first mentality.
"Officers never can assume that a criminal is unarmed until they have thoroughly searched the person and the surroundings themselves." Nor, in the interest of personal safety, can officers "let their guards down in any type of law enforcement situation."
THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO HIT OUR CONGRESSMEN"S OFFICES WITH ANOTHER BARRAGE OF E-MAILS, CALLS and FAXES; WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO AFFECT THINGS IN THE SENATE,
ESPECIALLY SINCE EVAN BAYH MIGHT STILL BE "ON THE FENCE". HE'S THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO HEAR FROM US THE MOST; LUGAR WILL STAY UNITED WITH THE REPUBLICANS AGAINST IT. (If you call Bayh's office, you will probably get his answering machine; I've been ASSURED BY HIS STAFF THAT THEY LISTEN TO EVERY VOICE MESSAGE THAT"S LEFT FOR THEM AND INCLUDE THEM IN THEIR TALLY).
VISCLOSKY IS PROBABLY HOPELESS; HIS COMMENTS DURING TOWN HALLS INDICATE EITHER:
1.) HE IS TOTALLY CLUELESS ABOUT WHAT LIES BEHIND OBAMACARE or
2.) HE IS AWARE AND IS BLATANTLY LYING TO US.
BUT IT MIGHT BE WORTH THE EFFORT TO BESIEGE HIS OFFICE, TOO.
LET'S DO ALL WE CAN TO STOP THE TRAVESTY OF OBAMACARE FROM BECOMING REALITY--- THIS IS THE ONLY REAL CHANCE WE HAVE.
THANKS,
LARRY R
(PS--The Senate bill still leaves 21 to 24 MILLION people Uninsured! SO WHAT'S REALLY BEHIND THIS WHOLE DEVIOUS PLAN?)