SECOND AMENDMENT
Did you know that in 27 states only criminals are allowed to carry firearms on a college campus?
That's right, in over half of the states in our country, law-abiding citizens are prevented from protecting themselves in institutions of "higher learning."
And we all know what that means.
Criminals don't follow rules, so the only people that law applies to are peaceful people like you and me.
I call these gun free zones "Criminal Safezones", since only criminals are armed, and therefore, safe from citizens who want to protect themselves.
Amanda Collins was one of those people.
Fox News has the horrible story of what happened to her.
A concealed weapon permit holder, mother and student at UNR (University of Nevada, Reno), Amanda wasn't allowed to carry a firearm on her college campus because it was a "gun free zone."
That meant she was unarmed on a night in October, 2007 when she was attacked while walking to one of her classes.
You see, her attacker didn't care about the "gun free" designation. He had his gun.
And he held it to her temple while he raped her.
She had left her firearm at home because that was the law.
A law that left her completely vulnerable when she needed a way to defend herself the most.
It makes me sick to even tell this story.
But at most colleges and universities, they think people like Amanda should be completely defenseless.
They think that only scumbags like her attacker should be armed. I don't.
And I know you're smart enough to realize that, regardless of some ridiculous "gun free zone," criminals will carry where they darn well please.
That's why I take the effort to repeal the ban of firearms on college campuses very seriously.
I don't like reading stories like Amanda's.
And yet, it hasn't been enough to overturn the law in Nevada.
In 2010, the National Association for Gun Rights worked with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and was successful in overturning such a ban on a majority of campuses in Colorado.
This last week, Arizona became the 23rd state to do the same.
In Florida, Idaho, Texas and even Amanda's state of Nevada, the idea of lifting gun bans on college campuses is still being "debated."
To me, that's just sad.
Institutionalized politicians don't care about people like Amanda until we make them care.
I will continue to fight against these illogical laws that do nothing but harm law-abiding citizens, and also keep you updated on the progress of the National Association for Gun Rights' progress in tackling these bans.
I just wanted to share Amanda's story with you, as I know how powerful of an example it was to me that it's time to finally repeal nonsensical bans like "gun free zones."
Just remember her story next time someone tells you about "common sense" gun laws.
For Liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
GUN CONTROL |
|
EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition - Take Action NowAugust 25, 2010All Gun Owners, Hunters and Shooters: With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) - a leading anti-hunting organization - to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections. Larry Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation reported. Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) - the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry - urges you to submit comment to the EPA opposing any ban on traditional ammunition. Remember, your right to choose the ammunition you hunt and shoot with is at stake. The EPA has published the petition and relevant supplemental information as Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. If you would like to read the original petition and see the contents of this docket folder, please click here. In order to go directly to the 'submit a comment' page for this docket number, please click here. NSSF urges you to stress the following in your opposition: * There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations. * Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies. * A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk. * A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle's recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition - the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing. * Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring. Steps to take: 1. Submit comment online to the EPA. 2. Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban: Lisa P. Jackson Fax: (202) 501-1450 3. Contact your congressman and senators and urge them to stop the EPA from banning ammunition. To view a sample letter, click here. Lambs To The Slaughter Smoking-gun evidence of ruling elite's Right now, Washington is scheming and scamming to erode then erase the Second Amendment from our Constitution. And it will accomplish it through the signing of international treaties on gun control, bypassing the normal legislative process in Congress, tightening regulations upon firearm and ammunition manufacturers, using the antigun financing of tycoons and ultimately confiscating all firearms under the guise of terrorism patrol and enforcement. Without public debate and cloaked in secrecy, gun control will covertly come upon us like a thief in the night. One day, we will wake up to discover that the U.S. has signed a global treaty that will prohibit any transfer of firearm ownership, force reductions in the number of firearms privately owned and eventually eradicate the planet of guns for law-abiding citizens. Of course, the criminals will still illegally have their guns. And on that day, if you do not comply with that global treaty, you will be fined and face imprisonment. This is not a fictitious story or false warning. As sure as government health care has been shoved down our throats, so will the barrels of our guns. And left with little defense, we will go as lambs to the slaughter. I believe the political stars are aligning right now for just such a "perfect storm" of domestic disarmament: via the election and work of an antigun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington elites and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists from the White House to the Supreme Court, and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives like George Soros. This is the evidence - the smoking gun, if you will - of the pressing threat to the Second Amendment and our firearm freedoms. As Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, wrote in the American Rifleman (February 2010): "President Obama's political mantra of 'hope and change' has morphed into a very real threat. Obama's deep curtsy to international arms control has given 'hope' to the international gun-ban crowd that they will prevail. It was no surprise when Obama was elected that the nation was consumed with other domestic issues and had selected a president with one of the most anti-firearm records in American history. During his presidential campaign, the National Rifle Association outlined more than two dozen ways that Obama has fought against America's Second Amendment firearm freedoms over the years. So much so, that the NRA graded Obama's (and Hillary Clinton's) voting records among other presidential candidates as an "F." (Does that give any freedom-loving firearm bearer any hope now that both are now part of the same administration?) No wonder a Gallup poll in October 2009 revealed that 41 percent of all Americans and 52 percent of gun owners believe that Obama will try eventually to ban the sale of guns. It was also no surprise, therefore, a year ago this month when Obama personally promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the White House would push to ratify through the Senate the CIFTA (the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms) treaty, which has sat tabled and unapproved by the U.S. Senate since 1997. But then, as quickly as he initiated the debate, the president just as quickly ceased trying to ratify CIFTA in the U.S. Senate. Why was that? Cato Institute scholar Ted Galen Carpenter said there was a reason that the treaty was tabled a year ago by Obama. I agree. I believe that reason was Obamacare. He knew he couldn't tackle and force through Congress two incredibly hot and volatile issues at once, at least of this caliber. But now that Obamacare is law, it's no surprise that both CIFTA and a separate U.N. small-arms treaty are experiencing a renewed life. And like Obamacare was pitched solely under "health-care reform," you can bet that a small-arms weapon ban will be pitched under "a fight against global terrorism and drug wars." Trust me that what sounds like a tool being used against terrorism or illegal arm trade will actually further restrict Americans' right to bear arms. Under the disguise of an effort to combat drug violence, the passage of CIFTA or its equal will further clamp down upon our Second Amendment freedoms. Again, as Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, summarized in the American Rifleman (February 2010): "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international trade between nations, but there's no doubt ... that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control." NRA might mean National Rifle Association, but it also means to me, "Never Remove (your) Arms." The fact is, the Second Amendment could even save your lift That was the case this past year for Vern Grant, a 75-year-old Army veteran with Parkinson's disease and diabetes, who had just suffered through the death of his wife. Two weeks later, Vern was attacked by a burglar in his Washington home. After smashing the windows of Vern's handicap van and scavenging through his medicines, the intruder broke the glass of his back door and entered his home. Vern says the intruder was incoherently screaming. The intruder nearly killed Vern after hitting him in the head. But Vern was able to grab and fire his gun in self-defense, hitting the suspect. Vern miraculously made it to his neighbor's house, where he sought he The suspect was airlifted to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, and Vern was released from the hospital after his head wounds were treate Grateful for his life and the Second Amendment, Vern asked a question to a reporter that we all should easily answer, "You'd do the same if you thought he was going to kill you, wouldn't you?" Yes I would, Vern. In fact, by way of fair warning for any would-be burglars that break into my house, I hope they read the sign on my front porch first: "We don't dial 9-1-1 here." Chuck Norris U.S. Reverses Stance On Treaty To Regulate Arms Trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. Reuters post continues with: The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people. The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty. A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 Governments will meet at the United Nations in New York, USA, 14-18 June 2010 to review progress on the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms. ---- On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Comments taken from ResistNet.com |
![]()
Note:
The Constitution in Article II, Section2., paragraph 2 outlines how Treaties are ratified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous page: STORY BOARD F
Next page: Terrorists Rule