Messages: Show Message Summaries (Group by Topic) Sort by Date

#9857 From: Pro2Am@...
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:40 pm
Subject: GOA: Urgent Calls Needed against ObamaCare pro2am
Offline
Send Email

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. Problems, questions or comments? Please visit http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=newticket or call 703-321-8585 during normal east coast business hours.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#9856 From: Pro2Am@...
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:54 am
Subject: GOA: IN: ObamaCare: Urge Senator Evan Bayh to Tell Harry Reid "I'm Not Your Puppet!" pro2am
Offline
Send Email

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. You can contact Senator Bayh by going to his webform at: http://bayh.senate.gov/contact/email ----- Pre-written letter ----- Dear Senator Bayh: 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. Problems, questions or comments? Please visit http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=newticket or call 703-321-8585 during normal east coast business hours.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#9855 From: Pro2Am@...
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:23 am
Subject: Hillary Clinton Commits to UN "Small Arms Treaty" + Petition pro2am
Offline
Send Email

November 16, 2009 

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. 

That’s why it’s vital you act TODAY! 

The truth is, there’s no time to waste. 

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! 

That’s exactly where this petition come in. 

So won’t you click here to sign IMMEDIATELY? 

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!

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#9854 From: Pro2Am@...
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:27 pm
Subject: Obama Revives Talk of U.N. Gun Control pro2am
Offline
Send Email

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116041

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#9853 From: "kj1" <kj1@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:01 pm
Subject: Fw: Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun kurtjahnke
Offline
Send Email

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:17 PM

Subject: Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

*
*
*
*

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:15

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

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#9852 From: John Bischoff <mingol@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Should the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court? mingobat
Offline
Send Email

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
>
>
>
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#9851 From: "George" <gkbiv@...>
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:01 am
Subject: Re: Should the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court? gulfkilobravo4
Offline
Send Email

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

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#9850 From: "kj1" <kj1@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:51 am
Subject: Fwd: Carrying a Handgun kurtjahnke
Offline
Send Email

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 3:39 PM

Subject: Fwd: Carrying a Handgun

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
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#9849 From: "Howard Potash" <hpotash@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:48 pm
Subject: Re: Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court? hjpotash
Offline
Send Email

TRUE

----- Original Message -----

From: Richard W Zellich

To: Firearms@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 2:36 PM

Subject: Re: [Firearms] Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court?

> 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

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Firearms/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Firearms/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    Firearms-digest@yahoogroups.com
    Firearms-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Firearms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)

#9848 From: Richard W Zellich <rzellich@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court? rzellich
Offline
Send Email

> 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

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)

#9847 From: "Steve Swickard" <stevenpsw@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:22 pm
Subject: RE: Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court? stevenswickard
Offline
Send Email

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, 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.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)

#9846 From: "Howard Potash" <hpotash@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court? hjpotash
Offline
Send Email

Oh I forgot ..

There is a sleeper cell here in the U.S.A.

The F.B.I. claims it is so....

Howard j

----- Original Message -----

From: Howard Potash

To: Firearms@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 1:11 PM

Subject: Re: [Firearms] Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court?

You are correct on all points...

You have to prove you are innocent in the military..

The Government has three different ways on trying a case ..

Or it could be more now with Obama in charge

Howard J.

retired with over 35 years working with gov...

----- Original Message -----

From: Brightspot

To: Firearms@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 1:02 PM

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.

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Firearms/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Firearms/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    Firearms-digest@yahoogroups.com
    Firearms-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Firearms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)

#9845 From: "Howard Potash" <hpotash@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court? hjpotash
Offline
Send Email

You are correct on all points...

You have to prove you are innocent in the military..

The Government has three different ways on trying a case ..

Or it could be more now with Obama in charge

Howard J.

retired with over 35 years working with gov...

----- Original Message -----

From: Brightspot

To: Firearms@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 1:02 PM

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.

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Firearms/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Firearms/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    Firearms-digest@yahoogroups.com
    Firearms-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Firearms-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)

#9844 From: "Brightspot" <finkron@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:02 pm
Subject: Shiould the Ft. Hood killer be tried in state court? finkron
Offline
Send Email

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.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)

#9843 From: Pro2Am@...
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:39 pm
Subject: GOA: Obama Pushing a "Radical's Radical" to the Federal Bench pro2am
Offline
Send Email

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. Problems, questions or comments? Please visit http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=newticket or call 703-321-8585 during normal east coast business hours.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#9842 From: Pro2Am@...
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:55 am
Subject: Obama's OSHA Nominee Michaels: 2nd Amendment Threat pro2am
Offline
Send Email

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115720

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

*
*
*
*

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail
	Sign In New User? Sign Up
		Sports - Groups - Help

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Best of Y! Groups

Messages

****

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

*
*
*
*