America's Hunters

GOD BLESS AMERICA and GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!

Interesting slant on things...

AMERICA'S HUNTERS

Pretty Amazing!


A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin ... Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!

Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the 8th largest army in the world.

(That's more men under arms than in Iran . More than France and Germany combined.)

These men, deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with firearms, And NO ONE WAS KILLED.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania 's and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia , and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.

________ The point? ________

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower!

Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer.

It's also a matter of national security.

That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...

What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50 million armed citizens???

For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

(If you agree, as I do, pass it on, I feel good that I have an army of millions who would protect our land, and I sure don't want the government taking control of the possession of firearms.)

AMERICA! Designed by geniuses

Now run by idiots

*Legalize common sense*

Amendment II

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"IN GOD WE TRUST"

"Participating in a gun buy-back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids."
                                                                       - Clint Eastwood

Self Defense - What Part of Self Don't You Understand?

Apparently I wasn't the only one thinking this as Boston was locked down during the manhunt for the second terrorist bomber suspect. Liberals will certainly take offense to Arkansas Representative Nate Bell for his comments, but it remains a fact the protection of yourself and family is at first an individual responsibility. 

15 Year Old Girl a Proper Witness for Gun Rights

Courtesy of the Maryland Minuteman and You Tube. This girl presents an educated, articulate and common sense face to gun owners. She OWNS the politicians she was speaking to - you go girl!!

Post Script: This young lady is being interviewed on Fox News as I post this. Smart girl! Too bad her idiot elected law makers are teaching her that that because you are an adult doesn't mean you have any sense.

More Second Amendment Supporters

Harry Reid finally figured out that the Democrats have no support in the Senate to pass second amendment destroying legislation. Despite efforts by Obama, Uncle Joe Biden, Senator Frankenstien (D-CA) and others to make gun control an emotional issue, Second Amendment supporters found an ally in a previously quiet area, Black-American leaders.

Watch this short, but exceptional video on Black Americans coming together to support the second amendment putting it into perspective as the unalienable right that holds all the other rights together.

One Man's Personal View on Private Property

One Man's Personal View on Private Property, and a good one at that.

Private Property and the Second Amendment, by Alfred Adask

Not one of the nations opting for gun control recognized private property rights. Not one of the nations opting for gun control achieved prosperity while gun control was in effect.

According to political scientist political scientist R. J. Rummel, “In the 20th century, democide [murder of civilians by their own government] passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death.”

Get that? According to Mr. Rummel, during the 20th century, more people were murdered by their own government than were killed by a foreign government in the midst of a genuine war.

Virtually all of these two hundred million deaths of civilians by their own governments came after the people had been sufficiently stupid and/or self-destructive to agree to surrender their arms to their government.

Simply put, if Mr. Rummel’s studies are correct, gun control caused more deaths in the 20th century than war.

Think international war is bad?

Domestic gun control is worse.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect us against our own government. It doesn’t only protect our freedoms and our lives—it also protects our right to private property, our prosperity and standard of living.

Lose your guns; lose your private property; lose your personal and national prosperity; and, maybe, lose your life. Bet on it.

Remember: No one really wants you disarmed except the gangs (private or governmental) who plan to rob you.

Gun Companies May Leave Their Restrictive States

From an article titled, "Magpul Industries Was Not Bluffing, Remington and Colt May Follow Suit" by Matt Liponoga posted on the Free Patriot,........ No sooner had Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed three gun-control bills into law Wednesday than the economic backlash began.

Officials at gun equipment manufacturer Magpul Industries confirmed that the company would make good on its vow to leave Colorado if the governor signed the bill to limit ammunition-magazine capacity. The Erie-based manufacturer confirmed on its Facebook page that it will start its transition “almost immediately.”

Magpul may be the first firearms-related business to relocate as a result of state gun-control laws, but it probably won’t be the last. Companies in Connecticut, Maryland and New York are considering moves to more gun-friendly pastures as their state legislatures act on restrictive firearms measures similar to those pushed through by state Democrats here.

In New York, where Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed laws banning so-called assault weapons and limiting magazine capacity to seven rounds, venerable gun manufacturer Remington Arms is being wooed by officials in at least a half-dozen other states.

“We are carefully evaluating our options,” Teddy Novin, marketing director for Remington parent company Freedom Group, Inc., told the Utica Observer-Dispatch in January.

Remington, which has operated for nearly 200 years in Ilion, N.Y., employs 1,300 people and brings an estimated $50 million to the state annually.

Another gun company that may be receptive to relocation is Colt’s Manufacturing Co. in Hartford, Conn. The state legislature in Hartford is debating firearms restrictions in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December, which left 26 people dead, including 20 children.

Colt President Dennis Veilleux said in a March 18 editorial in the Hartford Courant that he feared the legislation would erode the 175-year-old company’s customer base and cripple its ability to do business in Connecticut. Last week, Colt drove home the point by sending 10 buses with more than 500 employees to the state legislature. The workers held a rally outside the state capitol, waving signs and chanting “Save our jobs!”

And in Maryland, officials at Beretta USA, the American base for the famed Italian gunmaker, have expressed concerns that bills moving quickly through the state legislature would make some of the company’s products illegal in its home state. Beretta employs as many as 400 workers, making the company an attractive target for nearby states, including Virginia and West Virginia.

Magpul, which manufactures polymer firearms accessories, including ammunition magazines, employs about 200 people and supports 400 supply-chain jobs in Colorado. The company blamed political currents outside Colorado for the Democratic legislature’s gun-control package.

“It is disappointing to us that money and a social agenda from outside the state have apparently penetrated the American West to control our legislature and governor, but we feel confident that Colorado residents can still take the state back through recalls, ballot initiatives and the 2014 election,” said the company.

Mr. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, acknowledged at the signing ceremony that Magpul might leave Colorado, but said he had concluded that the legislation’s benefits “clearly” outweighed the costs.

“Those are 200 people who go to work every day, and if Magpul decides they do indeed have to leave, that’s a hardship, that’s difficult,” said Mr. Hickenlooper. “In any difficult piece of legislation, there’s pluses and minuses.”

Maryland Legislators Schooled Over Gun Rights

Testimony in Opposition of Maryland Senate Bill 281 from Darren Mellors, Executive Vice-President of LWRC International.

My name is Darren Mellors, Executive-Vice President of LWRC International. LWRCI manufacturers rifles in Cambridge MD in Dorchester County. Our customers are the U.S. Government, law enforcement agencies nationwide, and allied governments that are sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State. We also sell a line of commercial products to qualified law abiding U.S. and Maryland citizens, until recently in all 50 states.

I am in the unique position to offer factual testimony to this legislature on behalf of the 300 families that depend on us for skilled employment; the various contractors that provide services and products for LWRCI; and the law abiding citizens of MD who are being vilified by your proposed legislation. Vilified may sound to be a strong word, but infringing on the rights of select group of citizens in response to the illegal, evil acts of a deranged individual or career violent criminals is the very definition of the word.

I also represent my mentor; the owner of LWRCI and consummate entrepreneur Mr. Richard Bernstein. He not only started LWRCI, but many other successful ventures in MD that have created an estimated 3000 jobs over the last 40 years by estimation of the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. His record of job creation on the eastern shore of MD is second only to Mr. Frank Purdue. He single handedly made Salisbury MD the center of Microwave Filter Technology manufacture for the world with K&L Microwave, and Lorch Microwave. Other examples of his success were BAI Aerosystems, Salisbury Pewter, Matech (Machining Technologies) along with many commercial real estate developments on the eastern shore.

Mr. Bernstein is also very active in our MD community being a large contributor to Salisbury University, and the namesake of the Bernstein School of Business. He has been given entrepreneurial, and community service awards, locally, nationally, and internationally. His entire ethos is focused creating jobs and building value in a company through local people, most starting from small ventures.

Facing these 20 gun bills, he is now put in a position to abandon his home, many of his MD employees and his proud legacy to move his ventures to a state that does not ask that productive member of society fall on a sword as a scapegoat for inaction by its government against the prosecution of criminals for gun crimes. There is also apparent malaise by the government to addressing serious mental health care deficits in MD and an apparent disregard of its citizen’s Constitutional rights under the second amendment.

To understand the consequences of passing this legislation, you must know what is at stake. LWRCI’s rate of job creation over the past 7 months has been approximately 10 new jobs per month. We have expanded the business through three MD counties with employees numbering 300. Then there are the employees of businesses we subcontract to, like Eastern Plating in Baltimore County. We do so much work with Eastern Plating; LWRCI has a resident employee in house.

LWRCI will bring in excess of $130 million dollars into Maryland this year. This money is put to work in Dorchester County, one the most economically distressed Counties in MD, and the money is spread throughout the state through subcontract work to Maryland businesses, the purchase of capital equipment and technical services, the rental of properties, contracting construction for expansion, employee’s payroll dollars and corporate taxes. The millions of dollars we bring from outside of MD into the state do more to stimulate the economy than any scheme legislators or members of the State and Federal executive branches ever could.

We have invested every dollar back into expansion and growth. We invest in our employees, training them in high tech skills like machining, programming, drafting and other skilled jobs. We use the Maryland institutes of higher education offering tuition reimbursement to our employees. Our goal from the first day of operations was to expand and build something of value, not take annual dividends. We have invested in Maryland, our communities, and its people.

In Feb of 2012 LWRCI signed a $109 million dollar 18 month contract with the Government of Saudi Arabia, sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Congress. This is the largest direct commercial to foreign government sale of firearms in the history of the ATF Exports Branch. $109 million dollars of foreign money coming into Maryland to a company that is five years old. In these economic times, this is a story that the Department of Business and Economic Development can be very proud of. New jobs; developing a workforce; and stimulating the economy.

We are successful because we offer and innovative product that is the best in the world. We have been awarded more than nine U.S. Patents in the past five years, and have as many pending.

Like our colleagues from Beretta, LWRCI is Maryland success story that this legislature and the Governor should be proud of. Success in these uncertain economic times should be celebrated and encouraged. While the U.S. manufactures fewer and fewer products, and U.S. exports to the world dwindle, the world still looks to the U.S. to secure its people and their countries borders with American firearms under the direction and supervision of the U.S. Department of State. We supply rifles to DOD, DOJ, DOC, DHHS, and the Pentagon Force Protection Agency to name a few federal agencies. We have supplied hundreds of local and state law enforcement agencies rifles to protect our law officers and the public they serve. Countless U.S. citizens buy our commercial rifles for the same reasons our government and international customers do. For sport or defense, people want and have the right to own the safest, highest quality product they can get. We have a noble job that we are proud of and take very seriously.

Our company success, and the success of our employees should be celebrated as a model to economic growth and civic responsibility. Instead manufacturers and our industry are vilified with the introduction of this legislation to ban cosmetic features of a certain type of rifle. Modern rifles are functionally no different or more dangerous than any other firearm. If you think they are, you need to educate yourself, and not by watching the latest Die Hard movie or Piers Morgan.

We already work in the most highly regulated industry in America. There are more than 20,000 domestic laws relating to firearms. As a company we are diligent to follow them to the letter of the law. Yet the Maryland Legislature, whom have already passed some of most extensive state firearms regulations in the union are attempting to pass further non-sensical laws that will do nothing to improve public safety.

Instead, these laws punish law-abiding citizens, and strip them of their rights. This law will push firearms into the black market to felons and criminals on to the streets as it did in Canada, the UK and Australia. Law-abiding citizens are faced with deciding whether to comply with an unconstitutional law or be labeled felons. Once passed, citizens with no legal method of disposing of these firearms will invariably create a black market with off the books sales with no checks, balances or regulations. Maryland seems doomed to repeat mistakes of the past while ignoring the core issues.

Our representatives should be alarmed with the fact that current firearms regulations are not enforced or prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Prince Georges and Baltimore City have some of the worst violent crime in the country despite having severely restrictive firearms regulations. Criminals responsible for gun crime should be brought to justice with the full veracity of our courts and laws. Criminal recidivism is common and encouraged by the lack of serious consequences to those who commit crimes with firearms, or obtain them illegally. Despite all of this crime concentrated in densely populated urban centers, gun violence in America in general is at a level lower than it was during the 10 years of the 1994 Federal “Assault Weapons Ban” and close to levels not seen since the 1960’s.

The Connecticut judicial system, legislators, an ineffectual gun ban, a broken mental health system and law enforcement did not prevent a deranged and disturbed individual from taking the lives of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary. The rifle found at Sandy Hook was already banned in that state. Our MD legislators are looking to do more of the same with political fanfare about improving public safety.

As parents, as citizens, we demand our government address the real issues, and protect our children and us. Not vilify it citizens by stripping them of their rights to put on a political show. We ask you address the real issues of crime control and comprehensive care for the mentally ill.

When the MD Department of Transportation buys our product to protect bridges and infrastructure from terrorism, the State refers to them “patrol rifles.” When a law abiding MD resident buys a rifle after filling out no less than 3 state and federal forms, including an Authorization to release Mental Health medical records, the state calls them “assault rifles.” They are simply rifles. Rifles made to be ergonomic, made of lightweight materials, made to be safe to shoot, made to be accurate. Not expressly made to “assault” anybody.

By the end of this hearing, you will all understand that by-product category, these firearms rarely used in crime. I can give you my own LWRCI statistic to add to the other statistics you will hear. We have shipped over 60,000 rifles to qualified buyers, and not once in 5 years we have been in business has an ATF trace been associated with an LWRCI product being used in a crime.

I came here to share this information on behalf of many Marylanders. We are asking ourselves a question everyday. Is it intent of this legislation to cause a mass exodus of law abiding citizens and productive companies? These citizens and companies will be forced to leave either on moral grounds, business grounds or both. These are the same people that are the core of civic responsibility and contribution to our community and state and its economy. How can LWRCI stay in MD and produce rifles, pay taxes, create jobs, and stimulate the economy when its government intends to restrict the rights of its own citizens? Aside from the moral issue, the citizens of this country would not forgive the hypocrisy of LWRCI staying despite passage of this legislation.

The legislation as written seems to be window dressing for political gain by a few in the face of ineffective crime control. The real issues of public safety as they relate to gun violence go largely unanswered. The MD government is making it clear through its actions with this legislation that we, nor Beretta nor other firearms manufacturers are welcome in MD. It sends the message that this is not the State to expand in.

This legislation also sends a clear message to MD citizens that wish to exercise their rights under the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution; that they are no longer welcome in MD. For criminals, it will be business as usual. As such, if this unconstitutional ban passes as written, we will comply with your wishes and move our companies out of Maryland along with as many employees and their families that wish to go.

Respectfully,

Darren Mellors

Executive-Vice President

LWRC International, LLC

Some Gun Companies support the Second Amendment

You would think all gun companies support the second amendment,...but I have a theory that some companies,...the major companies who make their living selling guns to the government aren't about to piss off that government, be it the state or federal government.

This was sent to me via e-mail, which evidently came from Brietbart.com:

......In a turning of the tables, liberty minded gun makers and companies that supply firearms, accessories and ammunition have determined that they have had it with anti-gun governments at the city, state and Federal levels, even if it means lost revenue. Several companies have announced that they will no longer be supplying equipment to hostile governments, police forces or first responders. New York and California have become the prime targets, making an example of out-of-touch politicians who continue to trample upon the Constitutionally protected rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms.

Breitbart compiled a list of statements from several of these companies:

LaRue Tactical

Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

Olympic Arms

Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers. In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.

Extreme Firepower Inc, LLC

The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms. Law-enforcement agencies are typically exempt from these restrictions. EFI, LLC does not recognize law-enforcement exemptions to local, state, and federal gun control laws. If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction. Templar CustomWe will not sell arms to agents of the state of New York that hold themselves to be "more equal" than their citizens. As long as the legislators of New York think they have the power to limit the rights of their citizens, in defiance of the Constitution, we at Templar will not sell them firearms to enforce their edicts. Templar Custom is announcing that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee will no longer be served as customers.

York Arms

Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York. As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.

Cheaper than Dirt

Recently, companies such as LaRue Tactical and Olympic Arms have announced that they will no longer sell prohibited items to government agencies and personnel in states that deny the right to own those items to civilians. It has been and will continue to be Cheaper Than Dirt’s policy to not to sell prohibited items to government agencies and/or agents in states, counties, cities, and municipalities that have enacted restrictive gun control laws against their citizens. We support and encourage other companies that share in this policy. Alex Newman at The New American writes:

The recent surge in companies refusing to do business with lawless governments hostile to citizens’ rights may have been partly inspired by Ronnie Barrett, owner and CEO of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing. His company, which produces among the most popular .50-caliber weapons in the world, refused to sell the firearms to officials or agencies in California after lawmakers there some years ago banned civilian ownership of the high-caliber guns.

“It’s hard to believe we live in such a dark time that someone has actually banned a single shot rifle. But as you will see, this is the cleverest of all gun bans, and the end goal is civilian disarmament, the confiscation of your tools of liberty, your rifles,” the respected CEO wrote in a piece at the time explaining his company’s boycott. “Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.”

Gun rights activists celebrated the decisions of the four companies to stand up for the rights of Americans. Analysts expect more firms to stand up soon, noting that otherwise, gun owners may choose to purchase from other manufacturers in the future. Across America, state governments,sheriffs, and even some city and county governments are working hard to protect the right to keep and bear arms regardless of any unconstitutional federal “laws” or edicts from President Obama to the contrary. Activists say it is time for all gun makers to join the effort or potentially face a boycott themselves.

While the big three manufacturers of firearms that sell to the New York Police Department, Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Sig Sauer have not come on board, Freedom Outpost, as well as, Guns Save Lives encourage them to do so.

Not only is the Federal government out of its mind concerning Second Amendment restrictions, but so are thestates, including more Democrats in New Jersey putting together a package of 20 sweeping gun-control billsthis week with a vote scheduled for February 21. While some naively think that Christie would veto such legislation, don’t hold your breath. Not only has he called for gun control to be a national discussion, but New Jersey has the second toughest gun control statutes in the country.

While not enacting new gun control measures, he has not set out to repeal them either, claiming that the existing laws are sufficient. Take time to contact gun manufacturers and voice your support for them to stop selling to governments (City, County, State, or Federal) hostile to the Second Amendment rights of citizens.

GLOCK, Inc. 6000 Highlands Parkway Smyrna, GA 30082 USA Phone: 770-432-1202 FAX: 770-433-8719

SIG SAUER, Inc. 18 Industrial Drive Exeter, NH 03833 Phone: 603-772-2302 Fax: 603-772-9082 publicsafetysales@sigsauer.com globaldefensesales@sigsauer.com

Smith & Wesson 2100 Roosevelt Avenue Springfield, MA 01104 Phone: 1-800-331-0852 Fax: 1-413-747-3317 qa@smith-wesson.com

Additionally, here is the contact information for Remington: Remington Arms Company, LLC 870 Remington Drive P.O. Box 700 Madison, NC 27025-0700 TEL: 1-800-243-9700 Fax: 1-336-548-7801 info@Remington.com

Draconian Gun Law Proposed in Washington State

I received this through e-mail and it is pretty chilling that people and governments can actually think this will make a difference:

 …Liberal Democrat legislators in Washington State have introduced SB 5737, an assault weapons ban. Besides the purposeful misnomer of weapons that have the appearance of military weapons but are in no way even close to a military weapon, the legislation, if passed, will destroy one of the key provisions of the Constitution.

SB 5737 reads, in part, that "In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall...safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."

Do you get it? No warrant, no probable cause -- once a year the law gets to knock on your door unannounced and demand entrance to look around and determine you're in compliance pursuant to the whims and fancy of a legislator. Does that sound Constitutional to you?

My friends, I keep telling you, it is long past time we start a movement of NO. NO we won't comply with an out-of-control government and NO we won't be intimidated by those we elect and pay to represent us…

A New Pro Gun Argument from a Marine

As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much. Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter...

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)

So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Legal Immigrant Supports the Second Amendment

Henson Ong - Legal Immigrant's speech on the 2nd Amendment at a Gun Violence Prevention Working Group Public Hearing in Hartford, CT on January 28th, 2013.

Mr. Ong, a legal immigrant who described himself as an American by choice, calmly and succintly destroys the anti-gun arguement especially on civilian versions of military weapons. Apparently much of crowd agreed with him based on the applause. Yeah, Mr. Ong gets it.

Bob Schieffer likens Obama Gun Control as defeating the Nazis

Bob Schieffer of Face The Nation said that Obama has a very good chance of defeating the National Rifle Association because President Lyndon Johnson passed Civil Rights legislation and Franklin Roosevelt defeated Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Really!!  Not!  Schieffer is a extreme butt clown. That's him peeking between Romney and Obama like the little worm he is. As you'll remember during this Presidential Campaign debate, Bob the worm backed up Obama on Obama contention that he called the Libyan attacks a Terrorist attack all along.  Of course, the record indicates otherwise, but when do Liberals worry about the truth?  When confronted with the truth, they change the questions.

Back to dead beat Bob's statement:  First of all, President Johnson was only successful in passing Civil Rights legislation because Republicans supported it. The Democrats fought hard to defeat it. This fact is conveniently hid from the history books.

Second of all, Roosevelt did not defeat Hitler and Nazi Germany. American men did, and they saw first hand the results of a disarmed population who could not fight back against aggressive tryanny.

Ann Coulter on Stopping School Shootings

Wow! Great article by one of our favorite conservative woman, titled "WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS", by Ann Coulter published Wednesday Dec 19, 2012. Wish we would have found it earlier.

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

Online Remarks from Ann's column:

You cannot ban crazy or stupid, but you can Arm yourselves against them.

When Seconds count, cops are Minutes away.

You left out the Azana Spa in Wisconsin where three unarmed women were killed and four unarmed women were wounded. The sign on the door the killer used for entry read: "No Firearms Allowed".

As a Democrat, it's a rare instance when I agree with Ms. Coulter. This time I am with her 100%.

The article brings up an interesting point. She says, in all of the examples, that the shooters surrendered as soon a weapon was aimed at them and that all instances happened in "no-gun zones".

Violent crime is curbed when the criminal knows that his victim may fight back.

She is correct & in many cases the gunman commits suicide when they fear the police or someone is closing in. So imagine if a few arms brandished 5 minutes before the police response time occurs. Probably save some additional carnage.

When Florida enacted its conceal carry law robberies went down by 80% because the bad guys didn't know who was carrying so they then aimed at foreigners coming off cruise ships and areas frequented by overseas tourists and those incidents went up per capita.

NRA Election Re-Cap

The National Rifle Association was highly successful in their support for pro 2nd Amendment legislators up for election/re-election last week. These efforts and the results of a much more pro-2nd Amendment Congress make supporters of the U.S. Constitution sleep much better at night. Consider joining the NRA to add your voice to the millions already supporting the basic Constitutional right of firearms ownership.

Election Re-Cap from the NRA:

Election Day 2010 was a great day for the Second Amendment and National Rifle Association (NRA) members, and positions us well for our future defense, and advancement, of the Second Amendment! The most important fact about Tuesday's elections for gun owners is how many more pro-gun lawmakers we will have in the next legislative session and how many fewer anti-gun lawmakers there will be. Here are some highlights from Tuesday's contests:

U.S. Senate

19 of NRA-Political Victory Fund (PVF) 25 endorsed U.S. Senate candidates won. This marks a pro-gun upgrade of eight Senate seats.

In the 111th Congress, there were 43 A-rated and 34 F-rated Senators. The 112th Congress will contain 50 A-rated (+7) and 33 F-rated Senators (-1).

There will be 12 pro-gun Senate freshmen.

U.S. House

Of the 262 candidates endorsed by the NRA-PVF for the U.S. House, 225 were victorious, for an 85% winning percentage. In every case but one where an NRA-PVF endorsed candidate lost, a pro-gun challenger replaced him.

In the 111th Congress, there were 226 A-rated and 151 F-rated Representatives. The 112th Congress will contain 258 A-rated (+32) and 133 F-rated (-18) Members.

There were pro-gun election upgrades in 27 House districts.

Note: As of today, 9 races remain too close to call.

Gubernatorial & State Legislatures

Of the 21 gubernatorial candidates endorsed by the NRA-PVF, 15 were victorious. (Note: Two races remain too close to call.)

We made major gains in state legislative races, which will position us well in the upcoming legislative sessions next year.

The NRA wants to thank the tens of millions of gun owners who actively volunteered for pro-gun candidates and who Voted Freedom First on November 2nd!

NRA's Right To Hunt And Fish Amendments Adopted In Three States: Voters in Tennessee, Arkansas, and South Carolina made a powerful statement on Tuesday by overwhelmingly voting to include National Rifle Association-backed constitutional amendments to protect America's great, ages-old heritage of hunting and fishing as state constitutional rights.

Watch for Obama - U.N. Worldwide Gun Control Talks

A buddy of mine sent me this to remind me on a Oct 2009 article talking about U.N. World Wide Arms Control Talks scheduled in 2010:

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on 14 October 2009 saying it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous."

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement. However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

“The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.”

“A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.”

Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.

Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

The Founders intended that the Second Amendment to guarantee the rest of the Bills of Rights.