Archive for the ‘Gun Rights’ Category

September 5th, 2009

The Media are a Bunch of Idiots (from


Jon Stewart got it wrong. Stephen Colbert got it wrong. Every major media outlet talking about “guns in bars” got it 100% wrong.

You can’t carry a firearm into a bar in Tennessee. Period. It’s simply a lie.

Check out the rest of the post.

February 20th, 2009

Liberal Media KSL 5 Reports, So does StandardNet…

Once again, liberal media portrays guns as an unsafe and irresponsible dangerous weapon that only the “professionals” should handle. In the latest installment, KSL 5 in Utah reports that the Brady Campaign against the Bill of Rights to Prevent Violence has graded Utah on the safety of their gun laws. The score: 4 out of 100 possible points.

Dee Rowland of the “center for abolishing rights of responsible citizens, but not criminals” Utah Gun Violence Prevention Center agrees with the Brady Campaign and it’s claim that Utah’s laws help feed the illegal gun market.’

There’s really no such thing as Utah’s illegal gun market, at least not what they’re referring to. They are simply using propagandist and inflammatory catch phrases here.

‘”Such as the gun show loophole (doesn’t exist), where you can go to a gun show and purchase a weapon without a background check,” she said.’

This is not true. Any gun sale completed involving an FFL gun dealer in any gun show in Utah requires a background check. Private sales, however, don’t require such a check. So, by their definition of the “gun show loophole” (which doesn’t exist) we also have the Catholic Church Loophole, the Police Station Loophole, the Elementary School Loophole, the College Campus Loophole, the Private Residence Loophole, the Chucky Cheese Loophole, the trashtalking-liberal media-Civil Rights hating-morally inept KSL Classifieds Loophole, and even the Golden Grandma Luncheon at the Senior Citizen Home Loophole. This, my friends, is much MUCH more dire than previously thought. This must certainly mean that virtually every gun in Utah is illegal, and it’s all due to these dangerous loopholes. meh.

‘The report card also criticizes Utah’s lack of limiting bulk gun sales’

You can buy a 6, 12, or even 24 pack of beer at any major convenience store. Drunk driving deaths are twice what gun deaths are annually, why not limit “bulk beer sales” first if saving lives is really the concern of these morons?

Paul Helmke, spokesman for the Brady Campaign says lawmakers “have done nothing to improve the state’s reputation when it comes to common sense gun laws.”

Good. Keep it that way. “Common sense gun laws” is an oxymoron. This is akin to saying “Friendly Murderers”, or “Responsible Rapists”. Gun laws don’t stop criminals, they simply aid and abet them.

StandardNet Puts It Into Perspective For Us

The highest score, 79, went to California. Utah, with a score of 4, was tied for next-to-last place. We’re presumably meant to infer that California, with its extensive and complex web of state and local gun restrictions, is a much safer place to live than Utah, where, for example, virtually any law-abiding adult can get a permit to carry a loaded handgun. However, the Brady report says nothing about actual crime rates. According to the 2007 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, California’s violent-crime rate (522 violent crimes per 100,000 population) was more than twice as high as Utah’s (235 per 100,000), and the murder rate in California (6.2 per 100,000) was nearly triple that of the Beehive state (2.2 per 100,000).

Furthermore, preliminary figures for 2008 put Utah’s murder rate at about 1.5 per 100,000, which is lower than Canada’s. Ergo, Utahns needn’t necessarily feel distressed about their state’s low Brady score. For that matter, perhaps they should even be proud of it.

N. W. Clayton
Director of Communications
GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah)

February 20th, 2009

Yakima homicide justified

Originally reported on January 22, 2009 over at

YAKIMA — A robbery suspect was shot dead by an armed civilian late Monday, the first incident of justifiable homicide city police said they could recall in recent memory.

Franklin McWain, 33, died at a hospital from multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. An autopsy was performed Tuesday.

A police news release said the shooting occurred in the 800 block of North Second Street about 11 p.m. Monday.

According to the release, a 27-year-old Yakima man told officers he was waiting outside a residence for a friend when he was approached by McWain.

The man, identified as Michael Valadez, 27, said McWain struck him on the head with a stick and demanded money. Valadez told police he was struck several more times before firing two shots at McWain. Valadez had a valid concealed weapons permit.

Valadez ran from the area and flagged down a passing police officer. He was taken to a hospital for treatment of a head wound and a broken left arm.

The release said police found evidence at the scene that backed up the man’s story.

He has not been charged with a crime. The case is being referred to the Yakima County prosecutor.

McWain was a longtime Yakima resident whose criminal history included six felonies, police said.

Court records show he was found guilty of charges related to eluding, theft and drugs, among other offenses.

February 18th, 2009

NY Senator, Husband Keep 2 Rifles Under Their Bed

Get this: a New York Democrat senator who believes that the right to keep and bear arms to protect one’s family and home is just that – a right. These are the stories I LOVE coming across. Read on below…

NY senator, husband keep 2 rifles under their bed

NEW YORK (AP) – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has drawn criticism from fellow Democrats in New York because of her pro-gun stance, says she keeps two rifles under her bed.

Gillibrand says she and her husband, Jonathan, keep the firearms to protect their upstate home.

“If I want to protect my family, if I want to have a weapon in the home, that should be my right,” Gillibrand, who has two small children, said in an interview published in Monday’s Newsday.

Her spokesman, Matt Canter, said Monday that the rifles are not loaded and the Gillibrands follow gun-safety procedures. He would not say if they keep ammunition nearby.

Gillibrand was a little-known second-term congresswoman from a rural Republican district when she was tapped by Gov. David Paterson to fill the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As a member of the House, she had earned a 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association.

The day her appointment was announced, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy threatened a 2010 primary challenge. She was elected to Congress after her husband was killed and her son wounded in a shooting rampage on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993.

Gillibrand has said that her views are broadening as she moves from representing one rural district to the entire state. She has said she would work to fight gun violence while still protecting hunters’ rights.

Gillibrand told Newsday that while she and her husband don’t hunt, her mother, brother and father do.

“I grew up in a house where my mom owns about eight guns,” she said. “She keeps them in a gun case.”

(This version CORRECTS last name of spokesman to Canter.)

(Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

June 26th, 2008

Supreme Court Gun Ruling Imminent, and I Can’t Sleep

It’s only a matter of hours until the most anticipated Supreme Court ruling we’ve seen in years hits the shelves. I’m tired, yet I’ve not yet slept tonight as I’ve been too worked up over this ruling. Whatever happens, one thing is certain: WE MUST STAND FOR OUR RIGHTS! There is no reason why we, the majority, should be losing ground on issues that are most dear to us in the pursuit of our freedom and happiness. What are you doing to protect your God Given rights? Whatever it is, make sure it’s big enough to count. Certainly the attitude of our opponents, the gun grabbing left, will not relent until they have their way.

This is why we must use all of our strength to stand up and declare that this is America. Our country was founded by men and women who desired freedom, happiness, and rule of fair law above all else, even life. I encourage all of you who are reading this to do something today. Speak with your family on the importance of our constitution, make a post on your blog, obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit. Do something which will affect those around you, because until you do, the left will be heard, loud and clear.

So, no matter what happens this morning in the Supreme Court ruling (I believe strongly that it will be favorable based on the arguments), remember that nothing is permanent. If we want to keep our freedoms, we must protect them. Our forebears protected theirs and our freedoms with their lives. What would you give up to protect the same?

June 23rd, 2008

Hopeful for Heller

In a matter of hours we could have a ruling on Heller – arguably the biggest case currently in front of the Supreme Court. This ruling really has the potential to carve out the path of gun ownership and rights for the next century or two, maybe longer.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

While many are conjecturing on what they hope the Supreme Court rules, others still claim they know what the Supreme Court SHOULD rule, based on evidence of past documents, indicative of the founders’ intent. Some have indicated that the right to bear arms should be coupled with registration requirements, and others still claim that additional laws, waiting periods, and other such superfluous measures must be taken to make gun ownership ‘safe’ or ‘reasonable’.

While on the surface, these arguments seem logical, it is a bottomless pit. The temporary hope of security is squashed by the long term effects of restricting policies. Gun Laws–over 20,000 strong and counting to date–have proven largely ineffective. Registration has proven the first steps to confiscation. Note that the references to England and Australia are not those of handgun or machine-gun-only bans. These are outright bans on all firearms, excepting a select few, which grossly infringe on the right of the people to use firearms for things such as hunting, recreational shooting, Olympic target shooting training, self defense (a God Given right and responsibility), and even law enforcement (the “bobby’s don’t even carry a modern weapon, unless you consider a stick “modern”).

In all of the cases of gun bans, U.K., Australia, and even D.C., one trend has been undeniable. Gun crimes go up. Way up. Guns become a commodity on the black-or underground-market, and hoodlums have access not just 9-5, but 24/7.

If we knock on reason’s door, we get a response. Bans create commerce. That’s right, drug bans, prohibition, gun bans, and even sex trade bans. Often, these bans have just the opposite effect than was intended. In the U.K., there is a tremendous underground effort, widely successful, to import arms from surrounding countries. In fact, reporters have been astonished when they’ve discovered how simple and inexpensive it was to get a fully functional firearm which could be used in any number of criminal ways.

These firearms, while available to all who really look, are only used by the criminals. Why? They’re illegal, and in case you haven’t taken notice, it’s the people who commit crimes regularly – stick with me here – who COMMIT CRIMES REGULARLY. They want to cheat, steal, and kill. This is in their hearts. They don’t care if some lawmaker has said it’s no good to buy guns. They do what they want, because they are lawless, brutish thugs who want nothing more than to live by their own laws, created in their minds and executed by their own skewed inner judge.

This is what has been revealed as the fallacy of gun control. Pull back the curtain, and you see that gun control doesn’t work, it will never work. As long as man has the means to create guns, guns will be used by the worst of humanity.

So, how then do we protect the rest of civilization from these loose cannons we call criminals? We know laws do nothing but disarm the lawful, while empowering the lawless. For those still not with me here, I’ll spell it out: ARM THE POPULACE. That’s right, put a gun in the hands of as many responsible people as you can, as quickly as you can, and you have the makings of a polite society. There, I said it. When a thug knows that opposition, even deadly force, could be right in front of him (instead of 3-30 minutes away) then he takes a whole new look at his decisions. You see, God has given us all a little gift called the will to survive. We cower at the thought of our own mortality; and even cold, seemingly heartless thugs share at least this much in common with society’s betters.

Now for the frosting: This debate is moot. The second amendment is really a matter of the rights of the people. The arguments are currently for or against the individual right vs. the right of an organized militia (U.S. Army). However, this also is a moot point. Why? Well, isn’t it obvious? The Bill of Rights, the document authored by the Greats of this nation’s founding, was written for you and me, the people. This was not a hall pass, conditionally or temporarily granting us rights to pass to and fro. The Bill of Rights is a message to all governments, now and in the future, telling in no uncertain terms what the rights of the people are. These rights, granted by God, are for all men. The infringement of these rights will warrant a reaction that the 2nd Amendment testifies to: self defense against all tyranny.

Maybe some are confused by the bill’s language, esp. the presence of a reference to the ‘State’. Is this the “State of California”, or the “State of being free”? In just asking the question, I think it clearly proves rhetorical. The State, whether a land mass or a State of being, both refer to one in the same. States were created to preserve freedom, a state which the settlers fought and died for.

This is another crucial piece of the puzzle. John Adams, George Washington, and Mr. Franklin didn’t just risk everything so they could have tea with George the third. They risked life, limb, and country so they could enjoy the freedoms they knew were inherently theirs, and they did it against a tyrannical government. Their sentiment at the time was for one overarching objective: guard against future tyranny as the one just defeated. Power belongs with the people, and the people grant the power.

“This is a free country”. Children run in the streets screaming this to their foes, knowing the truth stands on their side. I love my country, and am honored to live in a land which provides me and my family such a bright future. Some despise our freedoms, some want to destroy them, and some simply don’t understand them. That’s fine. You’re free to come if you want to be one of us, or leave if you don’t.

That’s what’s so great about our country: our freedom to choose our own course. But one thing I will not tolerate is the efforts of the select minority to strip these freedoms away from me and my fellow Americans. This is my land. If you don’t care for such freedoms, or cannot manage these freedoms for yourself, then please choose another land with another government. We are here to stay. Say what you will, but in our hearts, we remain unsympathetic to the whining of parliaments, politicians, and presidents who would infringe on our God Given Freedoms.

And should the time come, we will fight for these rights, every one of us, just as our Forefathers did before us: with our lives.

June 20th, 2008

Concealed permit holder stops bank robbery (VIDEO Link)

CANTON TOWNSHIP, MICH — A bank robbery attempt was foiled when Nabil Fawzi, an upstanding citizen took action and used his concealed handgun to stop the would be robber.

54-year-old Joseph Webster from Washtenaw County had entered the bank and quietly approached the teller window. He said nothing, but handed the teller a note telling her that he had a bomb strapped to himself. The teller hit the silent alarm and began stuffing a sack with $1 bills when Webster insisted she give him “bands of 50s and 100s.”

Little did Webster know that Fawzi, who had previously served in the Lebanese army for six years, was prepared for just such an occasion. After determining that the situation was safe, Fawzi pulled his concealed firearm–which he had a permit to carry–and cooly told the thief “You’re not going to rob this bank.” When Webster replied that he had a bomb, Fawzi merely responded, “I don’t care. You are not robbing this bank today!”

Fawzi searched the suspect for a weapon, then led him to a seat nearby, and waited for the police to arrive.

Fawzi has been hailed as a hero by locals in the town.


June 19th, 2008

Gun Control Advocates: Not my right? Prove it.

Gun control doesn’t work. We’ve seen that fact proven true time and time again all around the world. “Reducing guns reduces crime”, that fallacious statement has been perpetuated throughout the debates and is completely without merit. In fact, both the National Academy of Sciences and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) have found no evidence that any gun control law anywhere in the US has been effective in reducing gun violence. Is anybody surprised?

Enacting gun control laws to prevent criminals from committing violent crimes is akin to posting signs in campsites barring wild carnivorous animals from entering and attacking people. The problem is one in the same: Savages don’t stop to read the signs!

Someone who is intent on breaking a law will break a law. If someone is angry enough to commit a murder, will they not commit another, much lesser crime of obtaining and using a banned weapon? Let’s assume, for a second, that we can succeed in eradicating all firearms from our population. Will that not merely increase the number of murders by Knife, Rock, Bat, Crow Bar, Rope, water, and other “dangerous” weapons? After all, won’t the people with murderous intent simply use the virulent weapon available at the time to achieve their devious purpose? If not guns, then what? Surely something deadly. What do we do if guns are out of the picture? Do we ban pools of standing water? Do we outlaw knives? Does baseball become a “PAST”-time?

Next, if we disregard the asinine assumption that we can control every firearm with a full ban, then there is a gaping hole in the entire debate. I had a realization today, though it stemmed from a prevailing thought I’ve had for some time now: what will the ban do to control the access which criminals have to the tools they desire to aid in the safe commission of crime (“safe” meaning the safety of themselves, not you or I, the law abiding citizen)?

In England, the politicians promised that a full gun confiscation process would eliminate or greatly reduce the threat to common decent citizens. They claimed that with fewer guns, there would inevitably be less crime. That ideal has proven to be the furthest thing from reality. Repeatedly, newspapers, magazines and news channels have reported that crime has done nothing but rise – steadily – since the bill to ban guns was passed. This is true for the UK, Australia, and our own D.C. In fact, gun violence was on the decline before the ban was put in place. Since then, crime rates have reversed to an upward trend.

So what does this all mean? Let me put this as clearly as I can. Criminals – people who don’t follow laws – now listen closely, DON’T FOLLOW LAWS. That’s right. We make laws, they break them. We make more laws to prevent them to break laws, and they break those too. In the case of gun control, this process only serves to aid the criminal, not deter him.

Let’s take a look at the most common scenario in gun control:

Jim buys a gun, legally. He likes to go shooting with his son, and wants to protect his family from criminals like Rob. Politicians see Rob committing crimes with guns, so they decide to stop Rob in his tracks—by enacting new laws, laws such as those that require background checks for purchases at a gun shop or gun shows, laws that require a waiting period for firearms purchases, registration requirements of firearms, and even outright bans on some or all types of firearms. Jim, the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN complies with these laws. By the end, he turns in all of his guns to the proper authorities for fear of being in breach of a law. Jim is not a criminal, thus he is eager to comply with the laws, even though they represent a tremendous risk to himself and his family. Rob, on the other hand, is a punk creep criminal who wants nothing more than to take easy street and take what he wants with little or no cost to himself, even precious life. Rob doesn’t comply with the new law, but instead keeps quiet, and walks around daily committing crime armed and dangerous, now knowing that the risks to his commission of crimes, even while armed, are exponentially reduced. Rob now sees a fresh field of fruit to pick at will. That fruit? The precious lives and efforts of hard working, law abiding citizens who have chosen to live peaceably and lawfully in their country.

So again I ask, what will a gun ban or gun control law do to cripple the ability of a criminal to act criminally with a firearm? If nothing, (or nothing significant), then the only person that law is affecting is the honest, hard-working citizen that is now left helpless and hopeless in defense against evil minded perpetrators of crime in our society. Self defense is a God Given Right, and my individual responsibility. If you cannot provide a suitable replacement for that right to be fulfilled for myself by myself, then your law does nothing but destroy freedoms which keep our nation strong.

Don’t tread on me. If you’re not a criminal, then you’re just treading on yourself, too.

June 19th, 2008

A Message to Journalists – Study Your Code!

News reporting of late has become so skewed and twisted, it leaves one to wonder what really drives the opinions of these so-called “unbiased reporters”. My thoughts? News is money, controversy is cash, and after years of opposing major public opinion for years in order to ‘stir the pot’, our country’s news agencies have developed a belief system that, generally speaking, finds our country and it’s freedoms abhorrent. It’s shameful, disgusting, and appalling. We must speak up about this blatant disregard for truth in reporting – the breaking of a code which as I understand it is a journalists 1st Commandment – and call them to remember what they represent and act accordingly, or leave. Dan Rather, anyone?

Check out these two media clips below, both issued about the same time. The first is reported by Fox News in Utah, the second by KSL. How different are the tones of the reporter. The first report, while not a slam dunk for gun rights advocates, is moderate and factual in the reporting, not tilting to one side or the other. However, the second video is hard to defend as unbiased in ANY dimension. Check them out, and make a decision for yourself. And next time you turn on the news, remember to turn on your brain, as well. Oh, and shame on you Nadine Wimmer. Your bias is evident. You’re an insult to America, and an insult to Utah.

FOX Clip:

KSL Clip:

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE KSL CLIP ON THE YOUTUBE SITE WITH ANNOTATIONS. This will shed more light on just how biased this clip really is.

June 19th, 2008

Heller vs. D.C. – A Supreme Court Case to Root For

In mere days we should hear the ruling that could forever change the way guns rights are viewed in this nation—either way. Dick Heller is challenging the District of Columbia’s ban on individual possession and use of firearms, in the home or otherwise. This ban–which has been in place for more than 30 years–has left virtually all D.C. citizens helpless and hopeless as they struggle to live in one of the most unique areas of the U.S.

You see, D.C., neither a part of a state, nor it’s own state or country, and as such has become the farthest thing from a model citizen. Our nation’s capital city is probably one of the furthest examples of democracy and freedom that our founding fathers intended as they risked their entire future on our conveniences today. Personal freedoms being infringed, the Bill of Rights being trampled on, and crime that would put New York to shame…well, it soon may all come to an end. A ruling from the Supreme Court on the matter is imminent, the possibility of the Justices indicating that D.C.’s infringement on the Bill of Rights is in fact unconstitutional could be likely.

That’s right, we may finally have our highest court rule that you and I, in fact, are legally entitled to lay claim on our God Given Rights to protect our own lives, the lives of our loved ones, and the property which we work hard to acquire from the criminally minded thieving thugs who would just as soon take your life so they can take your stereo.

D.C. has had their day in the sand box. Actually, they’ve had their 11,682 days in the sand box, according to my calculations. And what have we seen? A steady, statistical rise in murders, violent crimes, and gun related deaths since June 26, 1976 – ironically nearly 32 years ago to the day (oh the irony if they came out with a favorable ruling next Thursday, on the 32nd anniversary!). In fact, the crime rates (murders included) were on a decline until the ban was made effective put into effect, just like England, just like Australia, and just like Canada. We have three countries probably most closely relating our own, and we have seen in no uncertain terms that gun control does not work in reducing crime. In fact, it has statistically shown exactly the opposite.

Now is the time for us to take back our 2nd Amendment rights, and fight for the freedoms that our founding fathers first fought for. That glorious piece of paper does not exist to tell us what we can or cannot do. The Bill of Rights is simply there to inform the governing body of politicians and judges what God has told us already – Our Rights as Human Beings. These, my friends, are our rights, and they are not to be trampled on. Blood has been spilt already to establish that these are our freedoms. Let us not forsake them so easily as our distant cousins across the pond. We will regret it, much as they do now. Stand up and let your voice be heard.

Freedom walks a fine line between comfort and complacency. Complacency has never bought anything more than the abolishment of comfort and freedom. Where will you stand when the chips have fallen?

Read the Transcript of the Oral Arguments in front of the Supreme Court
Listen to the audio recording of the Oral Arguments in front of the Supreme Court

© 2008 - All Rights Reserved.