Posts Tagged ‘NRA’
Before Taya Kyle, the wife of slain Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, even said a word, the crowd at the National Rifle Association Leadership Forum was on their feet giving her the longest standing ovation of the day. Just before she took the stage, a video honoring Kyle was shown at the Houston event.
“I challenge anyone to tell me there isn’t evil in this world,” Kyle said, her voice drenched in emotion. “From the days of Cain and Abel, we know all too well there will always be evil. But that evil shouldn’t take away our freedoms. In fact, the only way to defeat evil is by taking advantage of our freedoms.
Kyle went on to talk about the side of her husband that people never knew.
“First, promise me that you won’t think of Chris solely as a hero. He wouldn’t want that. Instead, I ask you to see him the way he would’ve wanted you to see him. As just an everyday boy who did his best at what he loved, growing into an everyday man, loving his God, loving his country…and loving his family,” she said, wiping a tear from her eye as the audience interrupted her with applause.
The widow talked about her slain husband’s appreciation for guns and insisted that guns do not commit acts of evil, people do.
Though she held up remarkably well while talking about her husband, there were moments when her emotions got the best of her, particularly when she saw a meaningful photo of Chris Kyle riding a horse and wearing a cowboy hat put on the big screen behind her.“He grew up to be a fine cowboy, and a handsome one at that if you don’t mind me saying,” Kyle quipped being overcome with emotions.
Kyle thanked the entire audience for fighting for the rights of all Americans, including veterans, which is what Chris would have wanted, she said. Chris Kyle dedicated his life to helping fellow veterans, including creating the FITCO Cares Foundation that serves veterans.
Kyle, 38, and his friend Chad Littlefield, 35, were killed on Saturday, Feb. 2, 2013, by a troubled veteran going through a tough time. He wasn’t trying to “treat” the troubled vet, he was simply trying to be a brother to a fellow serviceman. Kyle proudly talked about regularly taking soldiers suffering from physical or emotional issues on hunting trips and other outdoor activities to provide comradery, friendship and support.
Watch Taya Kyle’s entire speech at the NRA event below:
Mass murder has unfortunately always been a part of human history; among the worst of these are attacks on children. It is easy to buy into the idea that what we have witnessed in the last decade is a worsening of mass violence in the US. But the reality is that it is no worse than it has ever been. In fact the worst single act of school violence in the US happened in 1929. “There is no pattern; there is no increase.” (James Alan Fox, Ph.D. The Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts) It seems like there is more because we have it clearly brought to us by the media, we see the horror and feel the loss and desire to take action.
It is also common to blame firearms for mass murder, but the worst American attacks have been by explosives or arson. The worst school massacre was by explosives at the hand of a school board member who lost the election. In fact gun violence has declined to about half the rate it was in the 1990’s. The violence against students dropped from 54 to 13 per 1000 during that period. At the same time there was a huge increase in gun ownership. Not only was there a general increase in gun ownership, but the increase in semiautomatic rifles has even had a greater increase.
How could we change gun laws to make society safer? We could rescind them and stop infringing on the right of our citizens to own and bear arms.
Gun laws that limit ownership do not make society safer. What these laws do is limit the good citizens’ right to self-protection; while the criminals and crazies don’t care if the gun they use is legal or not.
Likewise, Gun laws that prohibit private ownership of guns do not make society safer. They take away the good citizens’ right to self-protection; criminals and crazies don’t care if the gun they use is legal or not.
One of the arguments for disarming citizens is that in countries where guns are banned the murder rate is lower than in the United States. England is the most touted example. Gun ownership in England is practically forbidden and they have a lower gun murder rate than the US. However, the correlation of gun ownership is irrelevant because England had a lower murder rate than the US when both countries had no limits on gun ownership. In fact the murder rate was lower in England in the 1950’s before gun control, than it is now with complete gun control.
Australia recently passed draconian gun laws confiscating millions of guns from their citizens. Since disarming the populace, violent crime of all types, including murder has skyrocketed.
Switzerland, Israel, and Finland have very lenient gun laws (Switzerland actually requires each home to have and assault rifle), yet their murder rate by citizens is lower than that of the US.
Gun ownership is much higher in American smaller cities and towns and in rural areas, yet the murder rate is lower. Gun ownership is much lower in black communities than white communities, yet the murder rate is much higher among blacks, and almost all murders of blacks are committed by blacks; mostly young males killing each other.
In the US cities like New Orleans, Chicago, Washington DC, New York, and Los Angeles have strict gun laws, yet they are the most violent cities in the US, with the highest gun murder rates.
Instead of worrying about guns in the hands of responsible citizens we should be addressing how to identify and neutralize the threat posed by potentially violent people. We should first figure out how to prevent them from doing harm, then figure out how to reduce the pool of those with mental problems or other violent tendencies, and how to reduce their access to potential victims.
We should consider measures that will reduce potential damage that can be done in our schools by a nut with a backpack of homemade bombs, flammables, automatic weapons, a machete, or a steel bar. Once such a murderer is inside a “gun free” school and police are called, dozens of children can be heinously murdered.
Even if you have a policeman on the campus at all times, the criminal only has to have two minutes to massacre a roomful of children. It can take longer than that for a resource officer to identify where the problem is and respond. Because the terrorists in Israel aggressively targeted children they have trained and armed teachers, administrators, and other school workers. This means that the damage that can be done will be limited because response will be immediate and massive.
If there had been two concealed carry citizens in the crowed when Rep. Gifford was attacked, chances are good that many could have been saved. If the teacher and principle had been armed at Sandy Hook, there could have been many innocent lives spared. Guns in the hands of good people is a good thing. Guns in the hands of bad people is a bad thing. It is the bad people that need controlling, not guns.
In part two I will discuss how such a security plan could be properly established without creating chaos.
Embattled rock star takes on leading force in Democratic Party
by JOE KOVACS
Joe Kovacs, executive news editor for WND, is an award-winning journalist and author of the forthcoming book, “The Divine Secret: The Awesome and Untold Truth About Your Phenomenal Destiny” (coming July 17), as well as the No. 1 best-seller “Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told.”
Rock star Ted Nugent is blasting the head of the Democratic National Committee as a “brain-dead, soulless, heartless idiot” in connection with controversy over his remarks that some think sounded like a threat against President Obama’s life.
Nugent had told the National Rifle Association over the weekend that “if Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”
Today, Nugent told former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee it was “ridiculous” to think he was threatening the president, but understood why the Secret Service is now investigating.
“I respect their duty to do so,” he said. “The rules of engagement for the Secret Service is to respond even when someone as maniacal as a Wasserman Schultz or Pelosi or Boxer or Feinstein” complains.
Express yourself with the must-have bumper sticker this election year: Ted Nugent for President!
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been slamming Nugent’s comments, saying, “Mitt Romney surrogate Ted Nugent made offensive comments about President Obama and November’s elections this weekend that are despicable, deplorable and completely beyond the pale.”
“We have more than 200 days to go in this election,” she added. “If the GOP and Romney are willing to accept this kind of rhetoric at this stage of the campaign, I can’t imagine what they’ll accept in September and October.”
The DNC also put out a video showing Romney once said “it’s been fun getting to know Ted Nugent.”
In response, Nugent told radio host Dana Loesch, “Wasserman Schultz is such a brain-dead, soulless, heartless idiot, that I could not be more proud that this soulless, heartless idiot feebly attempts to find fault with Ted Nugent because I am on the right track, and she just encourages me to stand stronger.”
The left has called for Romney, the Republican front-runner for the presidential nomination, to denounce Nugent’s remarks, and campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul issued a statement saying, “divisive language is offensive no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from. Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil.”
When Nugent was asked about that, the musician said, “Mitt Romney’s already denounced my guitar playing because it’s too sexy. … Mitt Romney is a great American. Mitt Romney believes in the First Amendment. Mitt Romney knows what I’m saying is true. He puts into words for him. I put it into words for me.”
He continued: “Even guitar players qualify as ‘We the People’ where I come from. When I write, I write about the positive glow of productive America and why the Golden Rule, and the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights are guiding forces for the greatest quality of life in the history of humankind. And anyone that disagrees with me disagrees with that.”
Los Angeles Times editorial writer Jon Healey told Democrats to relax, that Nugent is just a rock ‘n’ roller.
“Nugent is no more a surrogate for Romney than the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is for Obama,” Healey wrote. “Just because someone with a microphone urges people to vote for a candidate doesn’t make him or her a ‘surrogate’ for the campaign.”
The Secret Service says it is aware of Nugent’s comments and conducting “the appropriate follow-up.”
“I have never in my life threatened anyone’s life. I’m incapable of threatening anyone’s life. Because I’m about positive change, my entire speech, all my articles,” Nugent told Loesch.
“I spoke at the NRA and I will stand by my speech. It was 100 percent positive. It’s about we the people taking back our American dream from the corrupt monsters in the federal government under this administration and the communist czars he’s appointed.”
“See, I’m a black Jew at a Nazi-Klan rally, and there are some power-abusing corrupt monsters in our federal government that despise me because I have the audacity to speak the truth to identify the violations of our government, particularly Eric Holder and the president and Tim Geithner, ad nauseam,” Nugent explained.
Nearly three years into President Obama’s first term in office, Michelle Obama finally said something with which I can agree.
At a recent fundraiser for President Obama’s re-election campaign in Providence, Rhode Island, the first lady told her audience:
“We stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country. You’re here because you know that in just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come … let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices … let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”
This was music to the ears of the small, affluent crowd of admirers who cheered and applauded. But to gun owners, Michelle Obama’s remarks should sound like a warning bell, alerting us to the danger ahead should Barack Obama win re-election and get the opportunity to alter the current make-up of the Supreme Court.
When Americans flock to the polls in 13 months, we will not simply decide which direction our country should take over the next four years. Rather, we will decide whether or not our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms will survive over the next several decades.
Currently, the Second Amendment clings to a 5-4 pro-freedom majority on the Supreme Court. Just one vote is all that stands between the America our Founding Fathers established and a radically different America that Barack Obama and his supporters envision.
If you want to read something scary, take another look at the minority opinions in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions that struck down Washington, D.C.’s and Chicago’s unconstitutional gun bans. In the Heller dissent, four justices concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm, nor does it protect our right to defend ourselves, our families, or our property. In McDonald, the same four justices argued that the 5-4 Heller decision should be reversed.
f these four justices had just one more vote on their side, their opinion — that the Second Amendment should not exist in today’s modern society — would be the law of the land today. And assuredly, the anti-gun activist wing of the court knows how close they are to gaining the upper hand. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Harvard Club audience in 2009, she looks forward to the day when a “future, wiser court” overturns 5-4 decisions like Heller.
Praying for the health of five justices is not a sound legal strategy for ensuring that our Second Amendment freedoms survive the relentless legal assault that gun-ban groups are waging in courtrooms across America. We need a president who will nominate sound, originalist nominees to the high court — nominees who will preserve the freedoms our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution.
If President Obama gets the opportunity to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court in his favor, we’re unlikely to see another pro-gun victory at the Court in our lifetime. Even worse, the 5-4 majorities in Heller and McDonald will be in serious jeopardy of being reversed, effectively eliminating the Second Amendment.
NRA members, gun owners and all freedom-loving Americans should heed Michelle Obama’s warning. We must spend the next 13 months working to make sure her husband doesn’t get four more years to destroy American freedom for generations to come.
Chris W. Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/11/michelle-obamas-warning-to-gun-owners/#ixzz1fCIWcoK9
You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside..
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.
Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.
They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.
“Only ten-to-twelve years, “he replies, as if that’s nothing.
“Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.
Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them.
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day’s headline says it all:
“Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack
of effort in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial.
The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a
license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”
All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities..
Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.
Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds. ” –Samuel Adams
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
You had better wake up, because our idiot president is going to do this very same thing over here if he can get it done.
And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.