3:00am Gunstory: Do you have ready access? Are you trained in gun safety?

It’s 3:00am. Do You Know Where Your Gun Is?

Imagine it’s 3:00am. It’s late, its dark, you cant sleep or you work late hours and you have stepped outside to check on your cat, your dog, your car, your porch-light, or to smoke a cigarette like the woman in this following true story. Do you own a gun? Do you know where your gun is? Do you have ready access? Are you trained in gun safety, when and how to use deadly force? Be ready. Be prepared. This true report could have ended in tragedy if these two sisters weren’t allowed to own or have a gun.-PBN

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c0.0.395.395/p403x403/529046_142383425920686_1316472421_n.jpg

The gun was a gift from a friend but it mostly stayed in a side-table drawer, she said, gathering dust. Then, early Sunday morning, Keeney pulled the trigger again — this time, she said, to save her sister’s life.

“I’m very grateful that it fired this morning,” she said Sunday afternoon.

Keeney, 55, said a man forced his way into her apartment in Highland, threw her to the floor and then put her sister, Donna Carlyle, 47, in a choke hold. He demanded money as Carlyle gasped for air.

“All I could see was Donna’s face going blue, like her life was being choked out of her,” said Keeney The alleged intruder, 33, was being treated at a hospital Sunday for two gunshot wounds and was listed in critical condition, police said. They have not released his name. The incident occurred about 3:30 a.m. at an apartment complex in the 2600 block of Eagle Way in Highland. Keeney and Carlyle live next door to each other. Carlyle was visiting her sister’s apartment when the assault happened. Highland Police Chief Terry Bell said Sunday that the man was shot twice and that police were still “piecing it together.” He added that he had no information to believe the man knew the women. Police for now are keeping the gun as evidence.

Keeney said she thought she only shot the man once with her gun, which she described as a five-shot, .22-caliber derringer. The first bullet she fired, she said, was supposed to be a warning shot.

Keeney also said neither she nor her sister knew the intruder.

“I have no idea where he came from or where he was going,” she said.

She had a clue something was wrong on Friday night, she said, when someone was heard going through the complex jiggling door knobs. She took the gun out from the drawer that night and laid it on top of the side table.

On Sunday afternoon, Keeney expressed some remorse but also pointed out that she felt she had no choice but to use the gun.

“I wish I hadn’t shot him,” she said. “I gave him an opportunity to leave. I wish he had left without me having to shoot him. … I hate the idea that I had to pull that trigger.”

Still, she added, “Put in the same situation, I would do it again.”

Some of her neighbors did not second-guess her actions.

“I’m proud of her for shooting that dude,” said Rodney Rusick, 68, who lives a few doors down.

Illinois’ self-defense law allows a homeowner to use deadly force if an intruder breaks in violently, or if the homeowner believes deadly force is the only way to prevent the intruder from committing a felony.

Keeney says she was attacked after stepping outside her apartment to smoke a cigarette.

“As I was closing the door behind me, this really big man pushed his way through the door,” she recalled. “I started pushing back. … He put one arm behind my arm and picked me up and threw me over my couch.”

The man then went behind a recliner, where her sister was sitting, and put Carlyle in a choke hold.

“He had her trapped like a rat,” Keeney said.

Carlyle said she was trying to dial 911 with a cellphone in her left hand while fighting for air with her right hand.

“When he was yanking me up, my feet were in the air,” Carlyle said. “It hurt so bad. I couldn’t lean forward. I could feel the air closing off. I couldn’t breathe at all.”

Keeney said she grabbed the gun — the side table is near the apartment door — and warned the man to let her sister go. He was demanding money, but Keeney said she and her sister both have multiple health problems and support themselves with disability benefits.

“We both were saying we don’t have any money,” she said. “If we would have had any money, we would have given it to him.”

Keeney says she then fired what she thought was a warning shot.

“I told him, ‘I’m going to shoot you if you don’t let her go,’ ” she recalled. “With that, I shot him in the back because he moved from behind the chair. He let her go. He took some steps toward me.”

The man fell to the floor, and Keeney stood over him, waiting for police to arrive.

“I was scared to death that he was going to kill my sister,” she said. “It was dark. He was a huge man, and it was 3-something in the morning.”

One neighbor, Lynn Palenchar, 69, heard the commotion but did not learn what happened until later.

“I was absolutely stunned,” she said. “You don’t expect something like that to happen. I’m just glad both are OK. If he had picked my place over theirs, it would have been a lot worse.”

Source Here: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/02/11/woman-shoots-intruder-saves-self-and-sister/?subscriber=1

Senators Stealthfully Seek Gun-sale Background Checks

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/gun-show.jpg?w=500WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with “F” ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks.

Answer our poll question. Should citizens in the United States be banned from possessing semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines?

A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Barack Obama’s gun control plan. Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation’s 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun show, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.

The senators’ talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly.

The private discussions involve liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader; West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, an NRA member and one of the chamber’s more moderate Democrats; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., another NRA member and one of the more conservative lawmakers in Congress; and moderate GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois.

“It will not limit your ability to borrow your Uncle Willie’s hunting rifle or share a gun with your friend at a shooting range,” Schumer said last week in one of the senators’ few public remarks about the package the group is seeking. He said he believed a bipartisan deal could be reached.

Polls show that requiring background checks for nearly all gun purchases has more public support than Obama’s proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and it is among those given the best chance of enactment. Even so, it is opposed by the NRA and many congressional Republicans, who consider it intrusive and unworkable for a system they say already has flaws.

“My problem with background checks is you’re never going to get criminals to go through background checks,” Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, told the Senate Judiciary Committee at its gun control hearing last week.

An agreement among the four senators could help overcome that opposition by opening the door to support from other conservative Republicans besides Coburn. It also could make it easier to win backing from Democratic senators from GOP-leaning states, many of whom face re-election next year and who have been leery of embracing Obama’s proposals.

Schumer and Kirk each have “F” scores from the NRA, while Coburn and Manchin have “A” ratings.

Prompted by the December massacre of 20 first-graders and six adults in Newtown, Conn., the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee plans to write gun control legislation in the next few weeks. The committee’s chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has expressed strong support for universal background checks and it is expected to be a cornerstone of his bill, but a version of that language with bipartisan support could give the entire package a boost.

“If the language is meaningful, it would be obviously a huge step,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which represents child welfare, religious and other groups favoring gun curbs. “To have someone like Coburn, who’s voted consistently with the gun lobby, to come out and endorse a meaningful background check would be very helpful.”

It is likely that any gun-control bill will need 60 votes to pass the 100-member Senate. Democrats have 55 votes, including two Democratic-leaning independents.

Leaders of the GOP-run House are planning to see what, if anything, the Senate passes before moving on gun legislation. Strategists believe that a measure that passes the Senate with clear bipartisan support could pressure the House to act.

Federal data on gun purchases is gathered by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is run by the FBI.

According to Justice Department estimates, the federal and state governments ran 108 million background checks of firearms sales between 1994 when the requirement became law and 2009. Of those, 1.9 million — almost 2 percent — were denied, usually because would-be purchasers had criminal records.

People legally judged to be “mentally defective” are among those blocked by federal law from firearms purchases. States are supposed to make mental health records available to the federal background check system and receive more generous Justice Department grants if they do, but many provide little or no such data because of privacy concerns or antiquated record-keeping systems.

Coburn got involved in the background check talks about two weeks ago and says a compromise could make it harder for dangerous people to acquire firearms.

“The whole goal is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals,” he said in a brief interview.

Manchin could be particularly influential with Democrats like Sens. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who face re-election next year in deeply Republican states. Besides being an NRA member, Manchin ran a campaign ad in 2010 in which he promised to defend West Virginian’s Second Amendment rights to bear arms and “take on” the Obama administration — all while shooting a hole in a copy of a Democratic bill that would have clamped limits on greenhouse gases — another sore spot for a coal-mining state like West Virginia.

In an interview, Manchin said that besides hoping for a background check compromise, he wanted inclusion of a commission that would study “how our culture has gotten so desensitized toward violence.”

Participating senators declined to provide details of the talks. But people following the discussions say the talks have touched on:

—The types of family relatives who would be allowed to give guns to each other without a background check.

—Possibly exempting sales in remote areas.

—Whether to help some veterans who sought treatment for traumatic stress disorder — now often barred from getting firearms — become eligible to do so.

An NRA spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, declined to comment on the senators’ discussions.

Islamic Gunman Fires at anti-Islam writer

As obama perches on his stolen perch. He freely shows his hatred for decent Americans.

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — A gunman tried to shoot a Danish writer and prominent critic of Islam, but the writer managed to fend him off and was not injured in the attack, police and an advocacy group he chairs said.

Police said Lars Hedegaard, who heads two groups that claim press freedom is under threat from Islam, was the target of the shooting. In a brief statement, they said a roughly 25-year-old gunman rang the doorbell at the writer’s Copenhagen home and when he opened the door, the gunman fired a shot aimed at his head, but missed.

“After a scuffle the attacker fled. At this writing we do not know whether the police have apprehended him,” the Danish Free Press Society said.

Hedegaard, 70, heads both the Free Press Society and the International Free Press Society. He was fined 5,000 kroner ($1,000) in 2011 for making a series of insulting and degrading statements about Muslims.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt condemned the attack. “It is even worse if the attack is rooted in an attempt to prevent Lars Hedegaard to use his freedom of expression,” she told Danish news agency Ritzau.

Hedegaard has expressed support for a range of outspoken Islam critics in Europe, including Swedish artist Lars Vilks and Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders.

“Failed attack on my friend and Islam critic Lars Hedegaard in Denmark this morning. My thoughts are with him. Terrible,” Wilders tweeted.

The Free Press Society said it was “shaken and angry” over the attack, but “relieved that the perpetrator did not succeed.”

Full article here.

A Short History of America’s Gun Law Confiscations

312469_501518569914220_1278991991_nIn this short but cogent post by VotingAmerican you can clearly see, what every whinny liberal and centered conservative knows. And that is that the vast majority of Americans do not trust any form of Government to be able to protect them. We also realize that making thes guns black market just ups the ante for decent law abiding citizens thereby giving the criminal element a peek at our hand. But will it happen?  We say, if and or when the government tries to take the law abiding citizens guns, it will be a blood bath. Molon Labe. -PBN

A poll by Anderson Robbins Research (D) / Shaw & Company Research (R) found that 52% of Democrats say they would refuse to comply.

Only 22% of Americans believe gun control will reduce crime

58% of Americans believe violent crime would be reduced if more people had guns

65% of American gun owners say they would defy gun confiscation

52% of gun owning Democrats would defy gun confiscation

70% of gun owning Republicans would defy gun confiscation

73% of gun owning Independents would defy gun confiscation

77% of gun owning Men would defy gun confiscation

52% of gun owning Women would defy gun confiscation

68% of gun owning whites would defy gun confiscation

54% of gun owning non-whites would defy gun confiscation

58% of gun owners with a college degree would defy gun confiscation

69% of gun owners without a college degree would defy gun confiscation

Among every segment of the gun owning population, a majority says they will defy gun confiscation.

549907_460544357334039_1143826317_n

24429_401645629927187_779610016_n

The Green Berets say ‘WATCH OUT’ regarding Obama’s Gun Ban [Special Music Video Posted]

“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes.” -PBN

Politicians, pundits and private citizens have been sounding off on Barack Obama’s new push for gun bans, but what do the professionals whose job it is to use guns in the protection of their nation, their fellow countrymen and themselves say?

Watch out.

An open letter has been posted on the Professional Soldiers blog that has been signed as of this writing by more than 1,100 current and former U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers, the Green Berets.

The soldiers say first it’s important to define the issue and set the record straight.

“The terms ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’ are often confused,” they say. “According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, ‘Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assaults rifles.’”

The Green Berets, who use the weapons, point out the M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle.”

Keep your gun rights: Sign new petition


“The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The ‘AR’ in its name does not stand for ‘Assault Rifle’ – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!”

Likewise, they say, a ban on “high-capacity” magazines would be irrelevant, pointing to the shooting by Eric Harris at Columbine High School as proof. The letter explains that when the first weapons ban was adopted in 1994, manufacturers retooled their products to meet the requirements of the law.

“One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.”

And, underlying the issue, the letter says, is the Constitution’s assurance of protection for the “sacrosanct” right of self-defense.

“Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression,” they say..

They write that it is easy to blame guns, but weapons aren’t really the problem. Civilized society already proves it, they contend.

“We cite the experience in Great Britain,” they write. In 1987 was the Hungerford massacre that killed 18, and the government followed with a 1988 law banning semi-automatic guns. But eight years later, a “disturbed” man murdered 16 children and a teacher the Dunblane school. Immediately the law was amended to ban “all private ownership of handguns.”

Somehow, criminals apparently didn’t get the message, the letter suggests.

“Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35 percent over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes… Gun related homicides were up 32 percent over the same period. … Gun related crime had increased 65 percent since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world,” the letter says.

“In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9 percent from the 2005 high,” the letter says, citing FBI statistics.

Since gun bans don’t really impact violence, what is the issue at hand?

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny,” the Green Berets say.

“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the Second Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.”

But school shootings are horrible and need to be addressed, they write.

“First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem.”

The military veterans say local schools should make their own decisions and plans.

“Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.”

Further, those individuals with diagnosed conditions that impact their ability to make decisions can be addressed with programs of treatment.

“In each of these mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable,” the Green Berets says

Firearms safety programs in schools could help, and a repeal of laws making them gun-free zones should be considered by local officials.

Also, the violence in video games needs to be addressed.

“”War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said, ‘War is hell!’ Leave war to the professionals,’” the letter says

“This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set,” they write.

Full article here.

Lawsuit Holds New York’s Illegal Gun Bill Up For Further Scrutiny

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) – Two gun owners have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn New York state’s sweeping new gun-control law, enacted after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut.

The suit, filed on Tuesday in state Supreme Court in Erie County, is apparently the first to challenge the crackdown on firearms championed by Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Attorney James Tresmond, who is representing the gun owners, asked state Supreme Court JusticeDiane Devlin to enjoin the law pending the state’s response.

The law was passed on January 15, making New York the first state to enact tougher gun regulations after a gunman shot dead 20 students and six staff members last month at the Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Connecticut.

The law bans assault weapons and magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition, requires gun owners to register most guns with the state and requires universal background checks, among other provisions.

The law also authorizes law enforcement to confiscate guns owned by a mentally ill person, if a mental health professional believes the person poses a threat to himself or others.

“A number of constitutional rights were just tossed aside here,” Tresmond said on Wednesday.

Under the law, the failure to register a gun is a class E felony. The suit claims that the provision violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because it could force a gun owner who registers late to effectively admit to committing a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled in Haynes v. United States that felons and others who are prohibited from possessing guns could not be forced to incriminate themselves through registration.

Tresmond said the law also violates the Fifth Amendment’s ban on the taking of private property by the government. The law requires people who own high-capacity magazines to either sell them or surrender them to the state.

The lawsuit lists as defendants Cuomo, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate majority leaders Dean Skelos and Jeff Klein, and State Police Superintendent Joseph D’Amico.

At a press conference after the lawsuit was filed on Wednesday, Cuomo, a Democrat, said he expected legal challenges to the new law and that he believed courts would uphold it.

“The more (people) understand the law and the more they hear about the law, the better they are going to feel because it has nothing to do with the legitimate ownership of a gun,” he said.

On Tuesday, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association filed a notice of claim with the state, which gives the group 90 days to file a suit challenging the gun law. The association, which is the National Rifle Association’s affiliate in New York, said in its filing that the law violates the Second and Fifth amendments, the Commerce Clause and constitutional rights to privacy.

The case is Richard Dywinski v. New York, New York State Supreme Court, Erie County No. 290-2013.

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner; Editing by Tom Brown)

UPDATE: Remember Who You Are USA, Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns Away [New Steve Vaus Music Video]

UPDATE: A Washington, D.C., conservative radio station has refused to sell airtime for a political statement from the writer-actor-singer who performed for years as television’s Buck Howdy – deeming it too “controversial.”“How sad that we live in a time when a message supporting the Constitution is deemed too controversial,” Grammy-winning musician Steve Vaus, creator of the Buck Howdy character, told WND today. D.C. conservative station shuts down political speech

Law abiding citizens do not possess assault weapons, they own defense weapons. And just so we are clear to the gun grabbers. The phrase “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands” is not simply a saying, it is a constitutional right and way of life. For those who are not apprised of the phrase “Molon Labe” it means “Come and take”.  Spoken by King Leonidas in response to the Persian King Xerxes (Persia is now Iran) army’s  demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. It is a classical expression of defiance. So we will succinctly say it, Molon Labe!

Freedom has never been free.  It has been paid for with the blood of Patriots since the birth of our Great Republic USA.  As time passes, it is up to true Americans to teach the next generation the Truth about Liberty and its cost.  The greatest Country of all time has been the most free and the most brave due to the Faith by Grace of its Citizens upon The Rock, The Cornerstone of our Country, The Lord Jesus Christ Who is the Only Mediator between God The Father and all of Mankind, which includes woman too, of course. 

Our Freedom of Speech and of Worship has always been contingent on the Safety and Security of Keeping that Freedom.  The Right to Bear Arms, the 2nd Amendment to our US Constitution was not given to the People for the People by the People so that we could continue to Deer or Bear Hunt, or even to simply and rightfully protect our homes. 

The MAIN reason has ALWAYS been to keep “We the People” safe and secure from the eventual possible reality of a corrupted, atheistic/agnostic, and ever-emboldened tyrannical government bent on usurping our God Given Freedoms away from “We The People”.  Our Founding Fathers knew this grave potential for it was from whence they had come.  The King of England had shown them no mercy and had followed those Freedom seekers to the shores of this Great New Land.  The founders had stated how important our God Given Freedoms and Rights were clearly in black and white in our US Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence, the Founding document upon which the US Constitution was based.  USA- The Home of the Free and the Brave. 

Stay strong. Stay courageous. Our strength is in the Lord, the Joy of the Lord.  His name is JESUS.  There is No Other Name by which we can be saved!- PBN

MolonLabe

[jwplayer mediaid="32523"]

Come and Take It,” the song that has rallied gun owners with its remember-the-Alamo-like message, now has an accompanying music video with a special message for Barack Obama and members of Congress.

Grammy-winning musician Steve Vaus, creator of the Buck Howdy character, recorded the song that defies those advocating gun confiscation with one of the slogans of the Texas Revolution, “Come and take it.”

Though the song itself is more vague, the video leaves no doubt who Vaus is talking to in the lyrics.

“Mr. President, members of Congress,” Vaus says in the opening to the video, “you’ve been making a lot of noise about taking our guns away. But you might want to review history.

“1835. Gonzales, Texas Territory,” Vaus continues. “The authorities wanted to confiscate the big gun that protected that colony. You know what the people said? ‘Come and take it.’ Because they were willing to fight for their freedom and their guns. So are we.”

The video then launches into the pointed chorus: “Come and take it if you want it. Come and take it if you think you can. Come and take it, but we’ll warn you, you’ll have to pry it from our cold, dead hands.”

The lyrics continue, “We want the freedom that God gave us, so you best not cross that line. If you want this gun you gotta to come through us and take it, one shot at a time.”

The slogan, “Come and take it,” became the battle cry and banner of the Texas Revolution after the 1835 Battle of Gonzalez, in which Texians defied the Mexican government’s demand to return a cannon that had been given them for self-defense. Rather than surrender the cannon to Mexican dragoons, Texians stormed the Mexican camp and drove the soldiers away.

As Vaus’ song sings, “You just don’t mess with Texas, especially when it comes to guns.”

Full article here.

Feinstein Gun Ban Exempts Feinstein and Government Officials

Gun Ban ResultsFeinstein was the target of terrorists in the mid-90′s which led to her proudly and publicly declaring she had a licensed gun and concealed carry. She stated “if someone was going to take me out then I was going to take them out with me.”

It turns out that Rep. Ellison’s and Nancy Pelosi’s friends were the terrorists who bombed her home.  They were unsuccessful in their attempt however as Feinstein explained in her statement to Congress.  Ellison and Pelosi had in their inner circle (and probably still do) a group of murderers and traitors.  “He who walks with the wise grows wise but a companion of fools suffers harm.” Proverbs 13:20 -PBN -

Sen. Dianne Feinstein rolled out sweeping legislation that would ban more than 150 types of military-style semiautomatic rifles on Thursday, kicking off the congressional debate on a new assault-weapons ban that both sides say faces a steep uphill climb on Capitol Hill.

The measure is by far the most ambitious of the number of gun-control bills introduced in the wake of the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., last month.

“This is hard to do. It’s not easy to do,” Mrs. Feinstein, California Democrat, said. “I think if the people in a red state want their representative to vote for this, they should weigh in, and the representative should listen.”

Her bill seeks to reinstate and expand the ban on assault weapons that was first enacted in 1994, but which lapsed in 2004.

It would prohibit semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature, such as a pistol grip or telescoping. Purchasing the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle, which was used by the shooter in Newtown, would be illegal under the ban.

Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel.

It would also ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden said in a White House video chat Thursday that high-capacity magazines are a bigger focus for him right now than assault weapons, though he did say that fewer police officers were “outgunned” when the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004 was still in effect.

He argued that such a ban might have made a difference in Newtown if the shooter had been forced to reload.

“Maybe if it took longer, maybe one more kid would be alive,” Mr. Biden said.

The Sandy Hook shooting has created an opening for pushing through broader background checks and some gun controls, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat.

“The center of America has moved in a sea change as a result of Newtown and other tragedies,” he said. “I think that elected officials may be politically vulnerable, but what we see is ordinary citizens physically and emotionally vulnerable as a result of assault weapons, but most importantly criminals, mentally ill people, domestic abusers, felons and fugitives all buying firearms and ammunition without sufficient background checks, and I think the assault-weapon ban and prohibition on high-capacity magazines is a part of that comprehensive strategy.”

In a statement, the National Rifle Association pushed back, saying that “the American people know gun bans do not work, and we are confident Congress will reject Sen. Feinstein’s wrongheaded approach.”

Efforts to renew the ban have repeatedly failed on Capitol Hill, where Second Amendment supporters have defeated nearly every gun-control measure for the past two decades.

Mrs. Feinstein acknowledged that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s recent comment in a television interview that an assault-weapons ban probably couldn’t pass the Senate “clearly wasn’t helpful.”

“He has a right to say it, and it doesn’t mean he’s always right,” she said.

But Mr. Reid insisted to reporters Tuesday that “this is an issue that we’re not going to run from.”

“It may not be everything everyone wants,” he said, “but I hope it has some stuff in there that’s really important.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, has scheduled a hearing next Wednesday on gun violence. Mrs. Feinstein has already introduced legislation to combat illegal purchasing by straw buyers, where a person buys a gun for someone who is not able to buy one legally, and to strengthen existing laws to combat gun smuggling.

“I’m not going to go away,” she said. “I’m second in seniority on that committee, and I will do it on the floor if it’s not in the bill. I am not going to quit.”

Her legislation also requires background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered by the legislation, mandates that “grandfathered” assault weapons be stored safely, and prohibits the sale or transfer of high-capacity, ammunition-feeding devices currently in existence.

Full article here.

“They Really Want ALL Our Guns…” Charlie Daniels

http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Charlie-Daniels-flag-shirt-300x258.jpgMay The Lord Jesus Christ Richly Bless Charlie Daniels and those whom he loves. He is a True American Patriot. -PBN

When the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter, makes a ruling in a case they first look for precedent, in other words to see if there has been a court decision rendered on the same subject in the past and usually defer to the old decision in ruling on the case.

The greatest teacher in life is experience; it only takes one time of burning your fingers on a hot stove to know that you never want to touch another one.

The next greatest teacher is observation, paying attention to someone else’s experiences and profiting from their wins and losses, trials and errors.

In my generation I have seen the rise and fall of fascism, communism, different experiments in socialism and the kind of downright social and fiscal foolishness that leads to what has recently happened in Greece.

There is an old saying that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

There is at this time a huge debate in our nation about the private ownership of firearms. The president and the anti-gun crowd claim they do not want to do away with private ownership, that they only want to modify the existing laws having to do with assault weapons -which can be construed as anything in your gun cabinet of any heavy caliber – and clips for semiautomatic weapons holding more than 10 bullets.

I submit to you that what is going on here is the first assault on private gun ownership

They will take what ever they can get now and continue to chip away until all you can legally own to protect your family with is a baseball bat.

Did you know that one of the major reasons the Japanese did not attempt to land troops on the American coast during World War Two is because they knew that Americans owned guns and would fight tooth and nail for every inch of shore line.

Hitler disarmed Germany, Stalin disarmed Russia, and Mao disarmed China.

The mainstream media is quick to report any kind of gun violence but omit the stories where lives have been saved by legally owned guns in the hands of good citizens and the stories are many and varied all across the country.

Let’s look at some precedent:

In 1997, many Aussies were forced to give up their privately owned firearms. Over 630,000 were turned in to be destroyed as part of a “buyback plan” by the Australian government. Total cost of the buyback? $500,000,000.

One year later, here were the results:

Homicides nationwide: Up 6.2%

Assaults nationwide: Up 9.6%

Armed robberies nationwide: Up 44%

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms went up 300%.

Five years later, a “continued modest decline” in homicides was noted, but what has gone up in the land down under over the past few years is the number of assaults. Overall, assaults are up 40% and sexual assaults are up 20%.

Across the pond, Great Britain passed a handgun ban in 1998. Ten years later, many British “bobbies” are armed for the first time because of the amount of illegal guns in the hands of criminals.

Have you read about gun bans resulting in more gun violence or seen it on the television news?

Do you think it’s newsworthy?

America, no matter what Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the far left in America say, they want your guns.

They want them all.

Don’t just wait and see.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Full article here.

Weston CT Seeks Ban on Assault Weapons as Gun Owners Fume

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Gun-control-experts1-600x350.jpeg

“Remarkably Stupid…” Weston CT Restricts Gun Owner’s Rights. Unconstitutional. Lawsuits Imminent? -PBN

By STEVE KOBAK

WESTON  – Weston officials recently introduced an ambitious new ordinance to ban the possession of assault weapons and regulate firearms in the town, and the ordinance is catching heat from local gun owners.

Weston First Selectwoman Gayle Weinstein said the ordinance was authored out of frustration with the inaction on gun laws on the national and state level.

“I’m just glad it got the conversation started nationally about the need for stronger gun laws,” Weinstein said.

Weinstein said an existing ordinance, passed in 1990, is in place, and the new regulations aim to strengthen the existing legislation. The new ordinance prohibits the possession and discharge of assault weapons, automatic weapons and any firearm with a detachable magazine that can hold more than ten rounds. It also limits the areas in the town where registered firearms can be discharged and requires gun owners to have a permit, specific to the Town of Weston, approved by the chief of police. Under the new ordinance, gun owners will be required to store their weapon in a locked box.

“It is found that the use of firearms and other weapons in the Town of Weston may endanger the health and safety of the town’s residents,” the proposed ordinance reads, in part. “Accordingly, it is found necessary to the general welfare of the town and its residents that the possession, use and storage of firearms and other weapons in the town be regulated and controlled, so that the health and safety of the town’s residents may be protected.”

Weinstein said the town government is still in the process of fine-tuning the new ordinance. Police found the new licensing regulations “too onerous,” and the licensing requirements will likely be tweaked. A group of lawyers that specialize in constitutional law are also combing through the ordinance, Weinstein said.

The ordinance has met resistance from residents and activists alike. Part of the reason that the new ordinance was met with such resistance is that, unlike resolutions, the new measure directly affects the rights of gun owners, who will be subject to fines if they violate the law.

Richard Burgess, president of Connecticut Carry, a 360-member educational nonprofit dedicated to protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of Connecticut residents, said the proposed Weston ordinance came to his attention via a concerned Westonite.

“It’s definitely out of the ordinary and revolutionary in the sense that it’s remarkably stupid,” said Burgess. “I’ve never heard of town officials being so full of themselves that they think they can do this.”

Six members of Connecticut Carry attended a recent Weston Police Commission meeting, handing out talking points and speaking with residents about the issue. They also plan to attend the Jan. 17 board of selectmen meeting.

Burgess said if Weston officials pass an ordinance limiting the rights of law-abiding gun owners in the town, they can expect a series of costly legal challenges.

“We don’t want to get involved in litigation, because it’s going to bankrupt the town,” he said.

Norwalk, meanwhile, does not look like it will adopt a similar ordinance any time soon. Mayor Richard A. Moccia, a member of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, reiterated his stance as a firm believer in 2nd Amendment rights with limitations.

Moccia said change in gun laws must be effected at the state and national level. If the state would allow the city to effect an ordinance at the local level, Moccia said the city would look into it.

“I’m not sure what, under the Home Rule Act, the city is allowed to do,” he said.

Full article here.

Gun Show At School, No Big Deal

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/chippewa.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/49/34983e1c-5b71-11e2-b995-001a4bcf887a/50ef3a7b6c63d.preview-620.jpgGun advocates and opponents nationwide may be arguing over school security and whether teachers should be armed on campus. But in Wisconsin — where children as young as 10 years old are encouraged to grab a gun and shoot a deer — one community is embracing its hunting heritage by gearing up to host a gun show in a high school gym.

All things gun related have drawn increased scrutiny since the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that left 21 children and six educators dead. Nonetheless plans for the show at Cornell High School this weekend have barely ruffled feathers in the city of about 1,400 residents in northwestern Wisconsin.

The state has a long tradition of hunting deer, black bear, wild turkeys and most recently wolves. More than 633,000 hunting licenses were sold for a nine-day deer hunt in late November.

“During school hours we have a zero-tolerance policy for guns and weapons of any kind, but this will be on the weekend,” Mayor Judy Talbot said. “I’ve not been approached by anyone saying anything negative about the gun show.“

Federal and state law bars guns in school settings under most circumstances, but there are provisions in federal law that allow guns with the permission of school administrators, said Steve Gibbs, the district attorney in Chippewa County. The National Rifle Association is pushing for armed security guards to be installed in schools.

Paul Schley, Cornell School District superintendent, said he received emails from five Wisconsin residents living outside Cornell who expressed disappointment that the show was taking place on school grounds. He responded that the school gym is the largest venue in town and is often used for community events, including an earlier gun show that ran without a hitch.

“We don’t look at what your event is, we just look at the availability of the facility,” he said. “We don’t discriminate on who uses our facilities.“

Furthermore, the gun show could boost the city’s economy. Organizer Marv Kraus expects 1,000 to 1,500 people to travel to Cornell to attend the show.

At least one local resident was upset about the show, suggesting its timing could put children at risk.

David Hugh, 33, said he has nothing against guns and is himself a hunter and military veteran but that he can’t understand why anyone would bring guns into a school on Sunday when students will return to the same building the following day.

“They could have done it during the summer. I’m not saying don’t have it, I’m just saying pick a different time, maybe when school isn’t in session,” said Hugh, who has a niece at the high school and a 5-year-old stepdaughter who attends elementary school in the district. “They don’t allow tobacco on campus, they won’t allow alcohol on campus, and yet they’ll allow guns on campus?“

Hugh said he didn’t complain to any officials because he didn’t think it would make a difference.

Gibbs said dealers would account for all inventory before they left, noting that none of them would want to leave behind a firearm they could sell for thousands of dollars.

“It’s like having a diamond show — you’re not going to misplace a diamond,” he said.

Sixty miles to the southwest, pastor Doug Stolhand prepared to host the Menomonie Sportsmen’s Expo and Gun Show at Menomonie Alliance Church later this month. Stolhand said one of his goals as pastor was to build bridges in the community and introduce more people to God. What better way to connect than over a pastime that drives the community?

“There really hasn’t been any pushback. We’re in a place where hunting is a part of life — men hunt here, women hunt here, kids hunt here,” he said. “We have people for whom deer season provides their meat for the year.“

Gary Thompson, organizer of the show in Menomonie, said he braced himself for complaints but received none.

“I really thought that somebody, some anti-gun person, would say something. I don’t know, you’ve just got crazy people on any side of anything,” he said. “But we have a large hunting community here. They’re not hard-core fanatics, they’re not huge activists. They’re just sportsmen, they’re hunters.“

Full article here.

What Even Hunters Must Fear from Washington Lawmakers RE: 2nd Amendment.

The Founders of this nation understood that there exists individual inalienable rights and our American government was formed with the sole purpose of safeguarding those inalienable rights. As a nation we are unique in this purpose for government, and the Founders demanded that all office holders swear an oath to ‘protect and defend’ these rights enumerated in our Constitution. The Founders understood the basic concept that government is not the source of rights; that self defense is an inalienable right the Second Amendment guarantees; that each citizen is guaranteed the tools necessary to defend their life, family, or property from aggression, whether from an individual or a government. -RD Skidmore

By

I went deer hunting with my father for the first time when I was only ten, duck hunting at 13 and pheasant by 15. The current approach to violence being taken by those in Washington may endanger my ability to do the same things with my children and you with yours.

Sure, for now, they are going after those evil “assault weapons” which are nothing of the sort. But even if they confiscate every one of those firearms, some crazed lunatic will use a bolt action gun or non-”assault weapon” and kill just as many and that will be the call to go after even those more commonly used to hunt game. If the line is not drawn here, there may never be a line from which we can defend our rights.

Firearms like the AR-15 are now very commonly used to hunt. Many use the “evil” AR-15 and Mini-14/30 to hunt feral hogs that are tearing up much-needed farmland and to put down coyotes that endanger game and livestock. The truth is that in the hunting world, those guns do far more good than evil and the truth must be used to create reason in the debate.

Our second amendment rights were written down and agreed to, not because our founders had some naive idea of how firearms would evolve, but because they knew that power-hungry ideologues would some day seek to slowly enslave the people.  It has happened before in so many countries, the same way, little by little until the people had no way to defend themselves.

Evil people will do horrendous things – we cannot stop them. Laws cannot stop them. Only a narcissistic populace can be led to believe that they or their government have the power to stop evil. A thinking people realize that evil exists and will use any means necessary to carry out terrible deeds. Only citizens with the means to defend themselves and others can belay such things.

The tragedy in Newton is a prime example. While an evil man happened to use a firearm to cause such pain, remember that he could as easily have killed his mother with a bat and used the car he stole to plow through the bus line at the school to have the same effect. Would we then outlaw cars? Of course not. We would look to the source of the problem, not the weapon used in the crime.

For the political elite, the answer is laws. Make this illegal or that illegal, as if the evil-doer gives any care to what is or is not legal. Adam Lanza didn’t care that he illegally murdered his mother, that stealing the guns was illegal, that possessing them was illegal, that stealing her car was illegal, that bringing the guns to a school was illegal, that murdering children and teachers was illegal or that suicide was illegal. Everything that happened was already supposedly prevented by laws on the books – but they failed as they always will.

Consider the legislation that Feinstein, Biden, Obama et al are planning to push. Make a certain firearm illegal, stronger laws against firearms on school grounds, laws against magazines – none would have stopped Adam Lanza. He broke a slew of laws to commit his horrific crime. How would one or two more matter?

The guns did not cause Adam Lanza to kill anyone. There were warning signs, actions not taken and mis-steps made along the way by everyone that knew him. The wake-up call should be that we, as a society, don’t know how to deal with people like him before they commit these atrocities. Why not?

The news is focused on his tactics and tools, not his motivation and the failures by so many to prevent his spiral into darkness. America can do better.

The easy thing is to blame the inanimate object – the weapon. Explosives, firearms, knives, clubs and vehicles would already be considered illegal if used in a crime, but they still are used to kill. Should we outlaw all those things or just begin to understand the cause and admit that sometimes evil happens.

If every gun owner does not decide that all guns are rightful and only humans are evil, then all guns will some day be labelled evil. At that point, even your field over-and-under shotgun will be considered a dark and unnecessary thing.