Word For It. . .

2Chronicles7:14-“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

Obama’s Head

Posted by wordforit on April 21, 2008

Condescending Remarks Reveal Obama’s True Feelings About Faith, Firearms and Working-Class Voters

Source: Center for Individual Freedom 

Remember Herman’s Head, the Fox sitcom that ran from 1991 to 1994?

That unusual but short-lived show centered upon an everyman named Herman, whose unremarkable life provided little novelty. Its premise, however, was unique because most scenes actually occurred inside his brain, with four distinct characters representing different psychological elements vying to control his behavior. Each personified psychological trait battled ruthlessly each episode and jockeyed for dominance, nakedly revealing Herman’s inner thoughts and feelings in the process.

Like Herman, Senator Barack Obama nakedly revealed his inner beliefs regarding faith, firearms and working-class voters this month while speaking before a Chardonnay audience in San Francisco.

At that April 6 event, Senator Obama was lamenting to the limousine liberal audience his inconvenience in having to court rural, poorer Pennsylvania voters. In doing so, he condescendingly observed, “it’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

As an initial observation, it is rich of Obama to impugn “anti-trade sentiment,” when he has gladly played the role of Grand Marshal in the parade denouncing free trade during this campaign.

More fundamentally, however, Obama’s comments expose his elitist, condescending beliefs regarding the right to keep and bear arms, religion’s role in our lives and his esteem of middle-class voters generally.

By initially characterizing such voters as “bitter,” Senator Obama disdainfully ascribes sinister motives to them, establishing a premise that their primitive beliefs derive more from visceral anger than from any sincere, logical principle. He also mocks the issues of religion and guns, suggesting that people would abandon them like useless clutter as soon as their income levels improved.

To suggest this, or to imply that there are no respectable reasons to “cling” to religious beliefs or the right to keep and bear arms apart from mindless bitterness, Obama degrades principles that the Founding Fathers considered so important that they were enshrined in the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution.

Even worse, Senator Obama implicitly associates faith and gun rights with rank bigotry and irrationality. After all, are we to believe that it was mere coincidence that he listed “guns” and “religion” alongside “antipathy to people who aren’t like them” and “anti-immigrant sentiment” as beliefs to which less-enlightened people “cling?”

Obama now claims that his comments were taken out of context, but his initial reaction to the controversy suggests otherwise. When first confronted with his own remarks, he confided to aides that he couldn’t understand why anyone took offense to his remarks, and dismissed it as a “little typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true.”

With specific regard to guns, Senator Obama deceptively claims to support an individual right to keep and bear arms, but his actual record clearly demonstrates the contrary.

Back in 1996, before liberals realized that advocating gun control constituted political suicide, Senator Obama endorsed a complete ban on handguns in a campaign questionnaire. Although Obama suspiciously protests that he “never saw or approved the questionnaire,” it turned out to contain his own handwritten notes. In 1999, he advocated a nationwide prohibition against gun stores within five miles of any school or park, a devious plan that would effectively expel firearms retailers from every city across the United States. After all, can one imagine a five-mile radius in any metropolitan area that doesn’t contain at least one school or park? And as recently as 2004, Obama voted against legislation providing legal immunity against prosecution for residents who used a handgun for self-defense on one’s own property.

That same year, he also advocated a nationwide prohibition against concealed-carry permits, which have done so much to reduce crime and enable citizens to exercise their natural right of self-defense in the 39 states that have passed them.

Although Senator Obama’s website alleges that he supports the Second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms, he also admitted to the Chicago Tribune that he considers the infamous Washington, D.C. gun ban constitutional because “local communities should be able to enact common-sense laws.” But if the D.C. gun ban, which almost completely prohibits possession of an effective firearm, is “common-sense” in his mind, what possible gun restriction would not fit his definition?

Senator Obama apparently believes that voters aren’t intelligent enough to catch the inconsistency of his positions, reinforcing his condescending persona.

Indeed, Obama’s April 6 comments in San Francisco probe new depths in condescension. Time will tell whether he pays the same price that such Democratic candidates as Adlai Stevenson, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry paid for similar condescension.

Source: Center for Individual Freedom 


Posted in Hillary Clinton, McCain, obama, politics, Second Amendment | 3 Comments »

Colleges to Allow Guns on Campus?

Posted by wordforit on March 4, 2008

Bob Unruh

Arizona lawmakers hope to stem the wave of unarmed students killed in campus slayings through a plan that would let adults carry firearms onto the grounds of the state’s universities.

“The police got to both the Virginia Tech murder scene and the New Life Church [in Colorado] in about six minutes,” noted Larry Pratt, the chief of Gun Owners of America. “At Virginia Tech, 30 people died. At New Life, two died in the parking lot and once the bad guy got inside the building he was engaged by (armed) security team volunteers and nobody else died. In fact, he was finished in about 30 seconds.”

That, he said, ought to illustrate the issue as clear as anything.

In Arizona, legislation that would allow people to carry their guns onto community college or university campuses has been advancing, and now awaits further Senate action, after critics demanded public schools be removed from the plan.

State Sen. Karen Johnson, the bill’s sponsor, said she was reluctant to make that change, because “I still feel our little kindergartners are sitting there as sitting ducks,” she told the Arizona Republic. But Johnson said the remaining bill now has a better chance to move forward.

One recent vote on Senate Bill 1214, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, came just 11 days after a gunman killed five unarmed people and himself at Northern Illinois University.

Pratt noted that Utah and several local jurisdictions scattered around the U.S. already allow people with a license to carry their weapons onto campuses.

“We would like to see every state do something like that,” he said, because of the tragedies that have been repeated multiple times in the past few years: a gunman starts shooting and killing people, they die, and then police arrive.

“Until we change that sequence, we’re going to continue to have people become victims,” he told WND.

Pratt cited the April 2007 Virginia Tech case, in which shooter Cho Seung-Hui, 23, fatally shot 32 people in a dorm and a classroom before killing himself, as well as the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., in December. Although the church operation is not identical to an educational campus, its sprawling acres and buildings and thousands of people have similarities. Police arrived on both scenes within minutes, but the death tolls were 32 in Virginia, two in Colorado.

“What greater contrast can there be?” Pratt suggested.

He also said carrying a weapon, not just having it at home, is founded in reason.

“Eighty-five percent of the attacks against persons actually occur outside the home,” he said, citing women in parking lots, motorists along a road, wherever victims might be.

And just the deterrence would make a big difference. He noted in the U.S., where citizens are allowed guns, only 13 percent of home invasions happened when the home is occupied. In England, where firearms bans are much more expansive, the rate is 65 percent.

“Clearly signs that say ‘No guns beyond this point’ are not a deterrent,” he said.

Police chiefs from Arizona State University, the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona told the newspaper they fear confusion with having citizens armed would lead to more people being killed. Officers could, they warned, shoot the wrong person.

The latest attack on unarmed teachers and students happened on Valentine’s Day, when Stephen Kazmierczak, 27, walked into a Northern Illinois University auditorium and shot and killed five people, and wounded 16 others.

The gunman then shot himself.

The issue has been raised in recent weeks by a WND columnist. Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and author of several books, wrote:


Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages: a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence (as the president of NIU has promised to do); b) making guns much harder to obtain or c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus?

Because political correctness has replaced wisdom at nearly all universities, colleges are considering options a and b. But the only thing the first option will accomplish is to reduce the quality of university life and render the campus a larger version of the contemporary airport. And the second option will have no effect whatsoever since whoever wishes to commit murder will be able to obtain guns illegally.

But if would-be murderers know that anywhere they go to kill students, there is a real likelihood that one or two students will shoot them first, and if in fact some would-be murderer is killed before he can murder any, or at least many, students, we will see far fewer such attempts made.

The Arizona Citizens Defense League notes the state constitution provides, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired. …”

Lawmakers in Arizona told WND the legislation now is pending before the Senate. A Marine Corps veteran, identified as William, however, was urging action.

The veteran, who said he now works in security in Baghdad, wrote lawmakers:

“Sir, if I or any other responsible law-abiding gun owner was attending class in Illinois or Virginia on those fateful days and was allowed to carry, these tragedies could have been averted,” he said .”Opponents … say that it is irresponsible to allow 18-25 year old young adults their basic right of self-defense. I have to say that I find this argument absurd. There [are] young adults carrying firearms right here in Baghdad in the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy. These servicemen and and women’s age does not in any way handicap them from being responsible with their firearms.”

People who desire training in firearms handling also apparently would have no significant difficulty.

Ignatius Piazza, founder and director of the Frontsight Firearms Training Institute, said he was committing to provide every Arizona school teacher with a $2,000 handgun course, free of charge, at the time the plan is approved.

“Every time sanity begins to prevail with good legislators like Arizona Senate Majoirty Leader Theyer Verschoor and Sen. Karen Johnson introducing a real solution to protect our children from a violent attack, the unenlightened begin crying about their fear of teachers with guns,” Piazza said.

Piazza also dismissed school presidents’ concerns over confused police officers.

“When police arrive on the scene it will be very easy for them to identify the assailant. He will be the only dead body because an armed teacher stopped a potential massacre as soon as it started,” he said.

The gun-control advocates at the Brady Campaign already has objected, however.

“Armed students? Armed teachers? That is the response of the gun lobby to the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech,” the group said. “Despite the massacre at Virginia Tech, college campuses and schools are safer than the communities that surround them, precisely because those institutions have barred or tightly controlled firearms. We need to support those institutions, not strip them of the ability to control firearms on campus.”

The group warned Nevada also has considered a plan to allow teachers to be armed, and South Carolina, Alabama, Michigan and Ohio are looking at plans similar to Arizona’s.

But Pratt repeated his insistence that it’s important to be prepared for a deadly attack. After killing two people at a Christian training center in Arvada, Colo., 24-year-old Matthew Murray went to Colorado Springs intending more murder and mayhem.

Murray shot and killed two girls in the New Life Church’s parking lot, then headed inside the building where thousands of worshippers were concluding a service.

A volunteer security guard, Jeanne Assam, confronted him almost immediately and fired at him. He fell, and an autopsy later said he had shot himself.

By: Bob Unruh

Source: WorldNetDaily 


Posted in crime, culture, current events, daily life, family, government, guns, Second Amendment | 4 Comments »

Who’da Thunk? Guns Best Crime Deterrent, after all (Second Amendment)

Posted by wordforit on February 29, 2008

‘People who say bad guys will stop because of 1 more law are full of it’

by Bob Unruh


When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.

That pending decision will decide whether an appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia ban on handguns because it violates the Second Amendment will stand or not. The gun ban promoters essentially argue that any gun restriction that is ruled “reasonable” is therefore constitutional, such as the D.C. handgun ban.

Deeds said this probably is the largest unified law enforcement statement in support of the Second Amendment ever, and includes nearly a dozen organizations that represent tens of thousands of police officers across the country, dozens of state attorneys general, dozens of prosecutors and a long list of federal law enforcement experts up to and including federal judges.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled on March 18, and the LEAA brief is just one of 46 that have been filed on the side of seeking affirmation that the Second Amendment does, indeed, document a right for individuals to own guns in the United States.

The brief notes when the Georgia town of Kennesaw decided to require all residents, with exceptions for conscientious objectors, to keep a firearm at home, home burglaries fell from 66 to 26 to 11 in consecutive years.

In Orlando, the deterrence to criminals who simply knew that their victims may have a gun and may know how to use it and may be willing to do just that had a significant impact, because while Orlando’s rapes were plummeting, assaults were up 5 percent across the state and 7 percent nationally.

The brief cites a study that discovered, based on interviews with felony prisoners in 11 prisons in 10 states, one third of the felons had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” and nearly four in 10 had decided against committing a specific crime because they thought the victim might have a gun.

“Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that ‘One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot,'” the study said.

The brief suggested the nation’s crime rate could rocket should more restrictions be placed on guns.

“Numerous surveys show that firearms are used (usually without a shot needing to be fired) for self-defense at least 97,000 times a year, and probably several hundred thousands times a year. The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement, because there are fewer home invasion emergencies requiring an immediate police response, and because the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, assault, and other crimes allow the police and district attorneys to concentrate more resources on other cases and on deterrence.”

“Guns save lives,” the brief said. “In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense.”

The brief said handgun ownership reduces the number of confrontational home invasions, so “the total U.S. violent crime rate [is reduced] by about 9 percent.”

Deeds said it’s always hard to predict the U.S. Supreme Court, but ideally the ruling would clarify the Second Amendment means exactly what its words say: that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

He compared it to the discussion of freedom of religion, should the Bible be banned. “For Christians there’s no effective freedom of religion if they didn’t have a Bible,” he said.

“To have the Second Amendment right on paper, but to be denied the effective means of exercising that right at a moment of truth, when you’re trying to defend yourself or your loved one from an aggressor, [is wrong,]” he said. “The gun is the only answer.”

Where the rubber meets the road, he said, is when a good guy needs to survive an encounter with a bad guy, he said. There are two possible results: Police arrive on the scene later to have the innocent victim hurt or killed, or they arrive on the scene to “find the victim hearty and the offender on the floor.”

“Every cop in American is going to pick the second closing of the story,” Deeds said.

He said gun control originally was sold to Americans as a way to lower crime, but he disagreed. “People who sell this idea that bad guys are going to stop because of one more law are just full of it,” he said.

“That’s a lie. That’s a fraud,” he said. He also said it’s a terribly slippery slope to say that under the Second Amendment, some gun restrictions are good because they are “reasonable.”

“We are hoping that they [the Supreme Court] make a very clear, very unambiguous decision in favor of the Second Amendment,” Deeds told WND.

Montana officials already have argued the U.S. already resolved any dispute about the meaning of the Second Amendment when it defined in Montana’s compact under which it became a state that “any person” has the right to bear arms.

And U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has led a congressional delegation in asking President Bush to order the U.S. Justice Department to submit a brief to the high court supporting the rights of individuals under the Second Amendment.

A similar request already has been submitted by officials for the Gun Owners of America, whose executive director, Larry Pratt, warned: “If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General’s line of argument, D.C.’s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. …”

The government’s position is available in a document submitted by by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He said since “unrestricted” private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,” Clement wrote in the brief.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the Second Amendment includes a right for individuals nationwide to have a gun or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, “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.”

Bob Unruh is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

Special offers:

“Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense”

A special DVD presentation by the man who, confronted by armed terrorists, shot back!

When it’s time to shoot back! Get ‘Armed Response,’ the guide to firearms, self-defense

Perfect gift for pistol-packin’ mama! ‘Stayin’ Alive’ shows guns are indeed for girls

Related stories:Credit card company: No more buying gunsCongressman asks prez to support 2nd Amendment

National firearms ban ‘reasonable’?

Public ‘threatened’ by private-firearms ownership

Drill instructor convicted after rifle jams

BATF rebuked for attacks on gun dealers

Gun shop: Complaint could have been ruse

Gun-shop owner gets ‘breath of fresh air’

‘Blog’ puts fear into gun shop inspectors

New gun control: Shut down shops

Your doctor could put you on no-gun list

Expert offers teachers free weapons training

State quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses

Trial will debate 2nd Amendment rights

Buy a house, get a gun free

New use for schoolbooks: Stopping bullets

New Yorkers rally for ‘illegal’ guns

Clinton-era war on guns revealed

U.N. gun confab ends in frustration

The U.N.: Gunning for more power

NRA warns of U.N. gun control

Michael Douglas backs U.N. gun ban

‘Anti-gang’ bill endangers gun rights?

County drops homeowner gun charges


Posted in crime, culture, current events, daily life, family, government, guns, Second Amendment | 3 Comments »