Monday, January 28, 2013
Any time congress exempts itself from a new law, it's a bad law.
Any time congress exempts itself from a new law, it's a bad law.
Congress is exempted from Obamacare and Feinstein's gun ban. You do the
math.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feinstein-gun-control-bill-exempt-government-officials_697732.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feinstein-gun-control-bill-exempt-government-officials_697732.html
OBAMA DECLARED UNCONSTITUITIONAL.
How long have I been saying it?
In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and hence the five-person board did not have a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks. They said Mr. Obama erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.
“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.
The judges said presidents’ recess powers only apply after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.
And the court ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.
In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama’s controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel’s ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and hence the five-person board did not have a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks. They said Mr. Obama erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.
“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.
The judges said presidents’ recess powers only apply after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.
And the court ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Texas Proposal: JAIL Any Federal Officials Trying to Enforce New Gun Restrictions in the State
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Texas Proposal: JAIL Any Federal Officials Trying to Enforce New Gun Restrictions in the State
measure would make any federal firearms legislation passed by Congress or approved by Presidential order unenforceable in Texas
Jim Forsyth
A Texas lawmaker says he
plans to file the Firearms Protection Act, which would make any federal
laws that may be passed by Congress or imposed by Presidential order
which would ban or restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms or
limit the size of gun magazines illegal in the state, 1200 WOAI news
reports.
Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.
"If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution," Toth told 1200 WOAI's Joe Pags Tuesday. He says his bill would make attempting to enforce a federal gun ban in Texas punishable by a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison.
Toth says he will file his measure after speaking with the state's Republican Attorney General, Greg Abbott, who has already vowed to fight any federal measures which call for restrictions on weapons possession.
Toth concedes that he would welcome a legal fight over his proposals.
"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," he said.
The Supremacy Clause is the portion of the Constitution which declares that federal laws and statutes are 'the supreme law of the land.'
"It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama," Toth said.
Texas is the second state to propose a measure to shield the state from the impact of any gun possession restrictions imposed by Congress or by Presidential order. A similar measure was introduced in Wyoming last week.
Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.
"If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution," Toth told 1200 WOAI's Joe Pags Tuesday. He says his bill would make attempting to enforce a federal gun ban in Texas punishable by a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison.
Toth says he will file his measure after speaking with the state's Republican Attorney General, Greg Abbott, who has already vowed to fight any federal measures which call for restrictions on weapons possession.
Toth concedes that he would welcome a legal fight over his proposals.
"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," he said.
The Supremacy Clause is the portion of the Constitution which declares that federal laws and statutes are 'the supreme law of the land.'
"It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama," Toth said.
Texas is the second state to propose a measure to shield the state from the impact of any gun possession restrictions imposed by Congress or by Presidential order. A similar measure was introduced in Wyoming last week.
Read more: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507#ixzz2IDv3i5su
Sunday, January 13, 2013
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Feinstein is incompetent.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Media push agenda against 2nd Amendment while masquerading as objective.
Ten Outrageous Anti-Gun ’Journalists’
Media push agenda against 2nd Amendment while masquerading as objective.
Published: 1/8/2013 10:15 AM ET
The
media agenda against guns is nothing new. But recent mass shootings have
encouraged supposedly neutral journalists to push for gun regulation instead of
reporting the facts surrounding the tragedies.
One thing the media seldom mention is that both the Newtown and Aurora shootings occurred in gun free zones. In the Clackamas Town Center Shooting in Oregon, however, a gunman was stopped when someone with a concealed carry permit intervened. There were only two casualties in this shooting which received little media attention. If this incident was mentioned, the concealed carry part of the story was almost completely ignored.
Some journalists have gone after after the NRA, calling for them to labeled “terrorist organizations” or lamented that they “yield too much power.” Others simply attacked any pro-gun advocate they had on their program. Still, a few went straight for the Constitution, with calls to “repeal the Second Amendment” or revise it. Many tried to imagine a world without guns … forgetting that even without guns, violence would still exist.
1. Donald Kaul Calls to “Repeal Second Amendment”
The most egregious case of anti-gun advocacy has got to Donald Kaul. Kaul, who retired from writing a weekly column in The Des Moines Register in mid-2012, came back after Newtown to speak out, taking anti-gun advocacy to a whole new level.
He had three solutions to the so called gun violence problem. The first of these was to “repeal the Second Amendment” since the founders never intended for private gun ownership as it is today.
After that, he would like to “declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal.” He argued that this would make owning guns less desirable, like how Communism was made illegal. Except… joining the Communist party was never actually made illegal in the United States.
He continued that he would like to “tie up Mitch McConnell and John Boehner” and “drag them around.” Kaul seemed to think that a good way to end violence is with more violence towards those with whom you disagree.
On Jan. 4, 2013, Kaul followed up on his piece on lefty site AlterNet. In his feel-sorry-for-me piece, he contemplated why people simply didn’t understand that his call to tie up McConnell and Boehner was satirical. “I was using it as a metaphor for making politicians pay a price for their inability to confront the gun lobby.”
But that wasn’t all. He later explained that his suggestion to repeal the Second Amendment was also satirical, to “point out that it’s being misinterpreted and misused.” He then said how he was flabbergasted that NRA members might be upset about his call to label the NRA as a terrorist organization. “I may now be closer to believing the NRA is an organization of terrorists, however.”
Surprisingly, people don’t like it when someone demonizes an entire organization.
2. Piers Morgan’s Vendetta against Guns
Piers Morgan never misses an opportunity to immediately politicize a tragedy and call for gun control. Newtown is no exception. The backlash against Morgan’s statements had been fierce this time around, though, with a petition to the White House to have him deported back to England.
On Dec. 19, 2012, Morgan claimed to respect the Constitution – including the Second Amendment – but then called for gun control anyway. “If he didn’t have guns, none of those children would have been shot,” he stated matter of factly. The previous day, on Dec. 18, Morgan went after a gun advocate on his show, calling him “an unbelievably stupid man” and “dangerous.”
Morgan is a legal resident of the United States, who is originally from England. He is host of CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight,” which replaced Larry King when he retired in 2010. He is a British journalist, and studied journalism at Harlow College.
3. New York Paper Publishes Addresses of All Local Gun Owners
Nothing can be more helpful to a criminal than giving them an exact map of which homes are armed and which ones aren’t… and that is exactly what the New York paper Journal News did in its Dec. 25 edition.
In a protest against gun rights, the newspaper published all the addresses of those who owned guns, not thinking through the consequences of such actions. Now, potential criminals are armed with valuable information that puts people at risk.
On Jan. 7, 2013, New York State Senator Greg Ball went on Huffington Post Live to discuss the Journal News escapade. He stated that while gun permits are public record, this list does not include criminals who may have illegally obtained guns in their possession. “We're talking about people who obey the law.” He continued by saying that permits belong to “many victims of domestic violence who got a permit to protect themselves.” He called this map a “public safety nightmare.”
It gets better. On Jan. 4, the Rockland County Times, another New York paper in the same area as Journal News, reported that 25% of the gun map was incorrect. “Rockland residents have reported that the information on the gun map is sometimes more than 20 years outdated.”
4. Bob Costas Blames Murder/Suicide on Guns
After the tragic murder/suicide of a Kansas City Chiefs football player and his girlfriend, NBC’s Bob Costas wondered during halftime whether these two people would still be alive if the football player had not owned a gun. “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today,” he stated. According to Costas, guns are the problem, period. There are no other ways to kill someone and there were no other factors contributing to this tragedy.
5. Soledad O’Brien Doesn’t Understand Gun Ownership
Soledad O’Brien is no stranger to stating her liberal opinions as opposed to balanced journalism, but after the Newtown shootings, she really lost it. On Dec. 17, O’Brien attacked pro-gun proponent and author John Lott. “Your position completely boggles me,” she gasped. A few days later, on Dec. 20, O’Brien expounded on her confusion by promoting a ban on hand guns. “Is going to the assault weapons far enough?” she pondered. “Does this … open up a conversation toward limiting handguns?”
6. David Gregory Promotes President Obama’s Gun Control Speech
NBC could never find anything wrong with anything President Obama had ever said, even when it comes to calling for gun control at a candle light memorial. In fact, NBC’s David Gregory went along and helped politicize the tragedy on Dec. 21, 2012. Gregory included many sound bites of the President’s call for gun control, but failed to interview any gun advocates. He then concluded his segment with: “The politics, it's just so hard to hear about people in so much pain as we go into the holidays. But it's all over that area, and we all feel it.”
On Dec. 23, while interviewing Wayne La Pierre of the NRA, Gregory produced a high capacity magazine as a prop, which is in violation of D.C. gun laws. This caused an investigation by the D.C. Metropolitan Police, who stated that they had denied NBC permission to use the magazine as a prop when they were asked. No word yet on whether charges will be filed.
7. Don Lemon’s Anti-Gun Tirade
On Dec. 17, 2012, CNN anchor Don Lemon went on a tirade against guns, calling for them only to be in the hands of law enforcement. “We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets,” he declared on his program. But what Lemon failed to consider is that in a time of crisis, it can take law enforcement minutes to get to a crime scene. A law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit could, in fact, neutralize a situation sooner, like with the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Oregon.
8. Dylan Byers is Sad Gun Control Talk Didn’t Survive Christmas
In his Jan. 2 post on his blog for Politico, Dylan Byers lamented about how the gun control talk had dropped off before Christmas. “This time was supposed to be different,” he wrote. He listed possible diversion for the subject, like Christmas or the fiscal cliff, but to Byers, this just isn’t acceptable. He then pondered as to whether it was possible for the discussion to heat up again post-holidays. “Barring a post-holiday resurgence – which is certainly possible – the gun control discussion has once again gone the way of … the gun control discussion.”
9. Bill Plante Slants Debate with Four Gun Control Liberals to One Gun Advocate
On Dec. 17, Bill Plante played sound bites about guns on CBS’s “This Morning” that included four gun control advocates versus one pro gun viewpoint. After playing bites from staunch gun control supporters Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Representative Carolyn McCarthy and President Obama in succession, Plante showed a short clip from Texas Representative Louie Gohmert.
After the clip of Gohmert defending the rights of gun owners, Plante commented on the politics of gun control calling them “toxic.” He then stated that “gun rights groups, like the National Rifle Association, wield tremendous influence.”
10. NBC’s Nancy Snyderman “Sick” Over “Guns and Violence” in Political Ad
On the Feb. 16, 2012 edition of NBC’s “Today,” Chief Medical Editor Nancy Snyderman went after then-presidential candidate Rick Santorum for a satirical political ad that depicted Mitt Romney firing a mud-filled paint ball gun at a cutout of Santorum. “I’m sick of guns. I’m sick of violence. I’m sick of it all. And I know it’s tongue-in-cheek … I don’t like it.” Although Snyderman’s comment predates the recent shootings, it shows how anti-gun more journalists really are. No word yet about how Snyderman feels about Tarantino’s latest film, “Django Unchained.”
One thing the media seldom mention is that both the Newtown and Aurora shootings occurred in gun free zones. In the Clackamas Town Center Shooting in Oregon, however, a gunman was stopped when someone with a concealed carry permit intervened. There were only two casualties in this shooting which received little media attention. If this incident was mentioned, the concealed carry part of the story was almost completely ignored.
Some journalists have gone after after the NRA, calling for them to labeled “terrorist organizations” or lamented that they “yield too much power.” Others simply attacked any pro-gun advocate they had on their program. Still, a few went straight for the Constitution, with calls to “repeal the Second Amendment” or revise it. Many tried to imagine a world without guns … forgetting that even without guns, violence would still exist.
1. Donald Kaul Calls to “Repeal Second Amendment”
The most egregious case of anti-gun advocacy has got to Donald Kaul. Kaul, who retired from writing a weekly column in The Des Moines Register in mid-2012, came back after Newtown to speak out, taking anti-gun advocacy to a whole new level.
He had three solutions to the so called gun violence problem. The first of these was to “repeal the Second Amendment” since the founders never intended for private gun ownership as it is today.
After that, he would like to “declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal.” He argued that this would make owning guns less desirable, like how Communism was made illegal. Except… joining the Communist party was never actually made illegal in the United States.
He continued that he would like to “tie up Mitch McConnell and John Boehner” and “drag them around.” Kaul seemed to think that a good way to end violence is with more violence towards those with whom you disagree.
On Jan. 4, 2013, Kaul followed up on his piece on lefty site AlterNet. In his feel-sorry-for-me piece, he contemplated why people simply didn’t understand that his call to tie up McConnell and Boehner was satirical. “I was using it as a metaphor for making politicians pay a price for their inability to confront the gun lobby.”
But that wasn’t all. He later explained that his suggestion to repeal the Second Amendment was also satirical, to “point out that it’s being misinterpreted and misused.” He then said how he was flabbergasted that NRA members might be upset about his call to label the NRA as a terrorist organization. “I may now be closer to believing the NRA is an organization of terrorists, however.”
Surprisingly, people don’t like it when someone demonizes an entire organization.
2. Piers Morgan’s Vendetta against Guns
Piers Morgan never misses an opportunity to immediately politicize a tragedy and call for gun control. Newtown is no exception. The backlash against Morgan’s statements had been fierce this time around, though, with a petition to the White House to have him deported back to England.
On Dec. 19, 2012, Morgan claimed to respect the Constitution – including the Second Amendment – but then called for gun control anyway. “If he didn’t have guns, none of those children would have been shot,” he stated matter of factly. The previous day, on Dec. 18, Morgan went after a gun advocate on his show, calling him “an unbelievably stupid man” and “dangerous.”
Morgan is a legal resident of the United States, who is originally from England. He is host of CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight,” which replaced Larry King when he retired in 2010. He is a British journalist, and studied journalism at Harlow College.
3. New York Paper Publishes Addresses of All Local Gun Owners
Nothing can be more helpful to a criminal than giving them an exact map of which homes are armed and which ones aren’t… and that is exactly what the New York paper Journal News did in its Dec. 25 edition.
In a protest against gun rights, the newspaper published all the addresses of those who owned guns, not thinking through the consequences of such actions. Now, potential criminals are armed with valuable information that puts people at risk.
On Jan. 7, 2013, New York State Senator Greg Ball went on Huffington Post Live to discuss the Journal News escapade. He stated that while gun permits are public record, this list does not include criminals who may have illegally obtained guns in their possession. “We're talking about people who obey the law.” He continued by saying that permits belong to “many victims of domestic violence who got a permit to protect themselves.” He called this map a “public safety nightmare.”
It gets better. On Jan. 4, the Rockland County Times, another New York paper in the same area as Journal News, reported that 25% of the gun map was incorrect. “Rockland residents have reported that the information on the gun map is sometimes more than 20 years outdated.”
4. Bob Costas Blames Murder/Suicide on Guns
After the tragic murder/suicide of a Kansas City Chiefs football player and his girlfriend, NBC’s Bob Costas wondered during halftime whether these two people would still be alive if the football player had not owned a gun. “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today,” he stated. According to Costas, guns are the problem, period. There are no other ways to kill someone and there were no other factors contributing to this tragedy.
5. Soledad O’Brien Doesn’t Understand Gun Ownership
Soledad O’Brien is no stranger to stating her liberal opinions as opposed to balanced journalism, but after the Newtown shootings, she really lost it. On Dec. 17, O’Brien attacked pro-gun proponent and author John Lott. “Your position completely boggles me,” she gasped. A few days later, on Dec. 20, O’Brien expounded on her confusion by promoting a ban on hand guns. “Is going to the assault weapons far enough?” she pondered. “Does this … open up a conversation toward limiting handguns?”
6. David Gregory Promotes President Obama’s Gun Control Speech
NBC could never find anything wrong with anything President Obama had ever said, even when it comes to calling for gun control at a candle light memorial. In fact, NBC’s David Gregory went along and helped politicize the tragedy on Dec. 21, 2012. Gregory included many sound bites of the President’s call for gun control, but failed to interview any gun advocates. He then concluded his segment with: “The politics, it's just so hard to hear about people in so much pain as we go into the holidays. But it's all over that area, and we all feel it.”
On Dec. 23, while interviewing Wayne La Pierre of the NRA, Gregory produced a high capacity magazine as a prop, which is in violation of D.C. gun laws. This caused an investigation by the D.C. Metropolitan Police, who stated that they had denied NBC permission to use the magazine as a prop when they were asked. No word yet on whether charges will be filed.
7. Don Lemon’s Anti-Gun Tirade
On Dec. 17, 2012, CNN anchor Don Lemon went on a tirade against guns, calling for them only to be in the hands of law enforcement. “We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets,” he declared on his program. But what Lemon failed to consider is that in a time of crisis, it can take law enforcement minutes to get to a crime scene. A law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit could, in fact, neutralize a situation sooner, like with the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Oregon.
8. Dylan Byers is Sad Gun Control Talk Didn’t Survive Christmas
In his Jan. 2 post on his blog for Politico, Dylan Byers lamented about how the gun control talk had dropped off before Christmas. “This time was supposed to be different,” he wrote. He listed possible diversion for the subject, like Christmas or the fiscal cliff, but to Byers, this just isn’t acceptable. He then pondered as to whether it was possible for the discussion to heat up again post-holidays. “Barring a post-holiday resurgence – which is certainly possible – the gun control discussion has once again gone the way of … the gun control discussion.”
9. Bill Plante Slants Debate with Four Gun Control Liberals to One Gun Advocate
On Dec. 17, Bill Plante played sound bites about guns on CBS’s “This Morning” that included four gun control advocates versus one pro gun viewpoint. After playing bites from staunch gun control supporters Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Representative Carolyn McCarthy and President Obama in succession, Plante showed a short clip from Texas Representative Louie Gohmert.
After the clip of Gohmert defending the rights of gun owners, Plante commented on the politics of gun control calling them “toxic.” He then stated that “gun rights groups, like the National Rifle Association, wield tremendous influence.”
10. NBC’s Nancy Snyderman “Sick” Over “Guns and Violence” in Political Ad
On the Feb. 16, 2012 edition of NBC’s “Today,” Chief Medical Editor Nancy Snyderman went after then-presidential candidate Rick Santorum for a satirical political ad that depicted Mitt Romney firing a mud-filled paint ball gun at a cutout of Santorum. “I’m sick of guns. I’m sick of violence. I’m sick of it all. And I know it’s tongue-in-cheek … I don’t like it.” Although Snyderman’s comment predates the recent shootings, it shows how anti-gun more journalists really are. No word yet about how Snyderman feels about Tarantino’s latest film, “Django Unchained.”
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Breaking news, another gun owner map released!
BREAKING:
Another Map Has Been Released Showing the Location of Gun Owners. This
one is from Texas. All orange dots represent gun owners! via www.PositivelyRepublican.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)