Thursday, February 28, 2013

NAGR Joe Manchin Commercial

Pass this one on to all your fellow Second Amendment supporters.

Sarah Palin: Feds Are Stockpiling Bullets For Us

Freedom Outpost
February 28, 2013 

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin took to Facebook on Tuesday and put her two cents worth in on why she believes the Federal government is acquiring so much ammunition. Her remarks about the current economic situation in the United States and the massive debt we have hanging over us concluded by stating, “We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”
Palin told those in Washington to “Cut the Drama. Do Your Job.”
She then went on to expound what the vast majority of Americans think. She wrote, “Americans are sick and tired of yet another ginned-up crisis. D.C. needs to grow up, get to work, and live within its means. The real economic Armageddon looming before us is our runaway debt, not the sequester, which the President advocated for and signed into law and is now running around denouncing because he never had any genuine intention of reining in his reckless spending.”
Palin also reminded her followers that the sequestration was the result of the long debt ceiling standoff in the summer of 2011. While she said it was not an ideal outcome for anyone, she attempted to claim that it at least included “real deficit reduction of about $110 billion per year for 10 years.” Actually the number is much less than that and when spread out over ten years and over various Federal programs and agencies, the effects would hardly be noticed.
The former GOP vice presidential candidate said that American families had already been hit with more tax increases because of Obama’s policies and bills he has signed into law, though she rightly points out that Obama calls taxes “revenues.” We wouldn’t expect anything less from a man that calls a “tax” a “penalty.”
“The American public doesn’t want tax increases; we want government to rein in its overspending,” Palin declared.
“If we can’t stomach modest cuts that would lower federal spending by a mere 0.3% per year out of a current federal budget of $3.6 trillion, then we might as well signal to the whole world that we have no serious intention of dealing with our debt problem,” she added. “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished.”
Palin concluded her comments by stating:
“We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”
This is not from a conspiracy theorist people. This comes from a former State governor and vice presidential nominee.
However, she did not leave her comments with a sense of hopelessness, but instead encouraged the U.S. to put it’s “fiscal house in order,” to “stop the hysterics, tighten our belts, and take our medicine.”
Previously I wrote about how DHS had continued their stockpile of ammunition solicitations, even while citizens are attempting to acquire ammunition during scarcity in the market.
Recently DHS put in a solicitation for 7,000 “personal defense weapons” that shoot 5.56 NATO ammunition that have “fire select” capability along with high capacity 30 round magazines.
Back in December DHS solicited for 250 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition. In September, DHS solicited for nearly 200 million rounds of sniper ammunition. In August 750 million rounds of high power ammunition were also solicited and in March DHS solicited 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets.
All of that is true, but to do that our representatives must be held accountable to their oath and that oath is to limited powers of spending. It would also require the people to understand those limitations and start calling their representatives to such limitations and voting out those that do not abide by them. For many, they are more concerned whether their team is in power rather than whether or not that team will obey the law of the land. We can no longer afford to think like that and must demand more from our leaders than mere rhetoric and we must look out for ourselves and our communities, should the feds decide they want to take up arms against the citizens of our country.

Read more:

Texas student's refusal to say Mexican pledge, anthem starts controversy

RIO GRANDE VALLEY, Texas - Every day students in Texas public schools pledge allegiance to the flags of the United States and Texas.

But when a teacher in a Rio Grande Valley high school assigned students to stand and pledge allegiance to the Mexican flag and sing Mexico's national anthem, one student refused.

The resulting controversy has one East Texas lawmaker wanting changes in the state's curriculum on how culture and patriotism are taught in schools.

15-year-old Brenda Brinsdon entered her sophomore year at McAllen ISD's Achieve Early College High School just wanting to do well in her classes.

But in mid-September she got an unexpected lesson on personal conviction and taking on the system.

"I feel that I did what's right," Brinsdon said. "And I know what I did what's right [...] I'm going to stand my ground."

Brinsdon said she stood her ground by staying seated when first-year Spanish 3 teacher Reyna Santos assigned her class to stand and recite Mexico's pledge of allegiance.

Students stood with right arms straight out and palms down, which is how the school district says Mexicans say their pledge.

Calling the lesson "un-American," Brinsdon recorded the class, which occurred the week of Mexico's Independence Day and also the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

The teacher also told students to memorize and recite the the pledge individually.

And when the time came for the part of the assignment to sing Mexico's national anthem, Brinsdon again refused.

With that, Santos asked the class to stand and led the class in the anthem.

"I told her, I was like, 'I thought this was a Spanish class,'" Brinsdon recalled. "And she's like, 'Well, yeah it is, it's like, it's a cultural thing.' And so I was the only one that sat down."

She was given an alternate assignment.

Brinsdon's father, William, backs his daughter. He said that reciting a pledge to any other nation has no place in public schools.

"What are we to do? Just lay down and let it happen?" Mr. Brinsdon said. "Or should we stand up for our country?"

Santos couldn't be reached for comment.

The school district declined several News 8 requests to interview someone with the district.

But in a statement, said it was a single lesson on Hispanic culture in one class at one campus, the lesson will be reviewed and students recite the U.S. pledge daily. 

This Spanish class assignment, Brenda Brisdon's refusal and the school district's response caused a firestorm on the right.

Conservative websites erupted, getting the attention of Republican State Representative Dan Flynn of Canton.

"It was a shock to me," he said.

The Texas Education Agency says the state curriculum outlines what must be taught, but local districts decide how it's taught.

Flynn said since the state allows that much discretion, he'll file a bill again to require more mandatory studies on the U.S. Constitution.

"I do have a problem if we're making that the assignment for young people to stand up and pledge to another country," Flynn said. "It lessens the value of the pledge to the United States flag."

After no one with the district agreed to an interview, News 8 confronted McAllen School Board President Sam Saldivar after a meeting. He indicated he didn't agree with the lesson.

"I would have taken a different approach, again I'm not an educator," Saldivar said.

But as the leader of the board that sets policy, Saldivar said there's no decision yet on whether to change the curriculum.

"That's a curriculum, a teacher working with the administration," Saldiver said. "As I understand it, it's going to be reviewed, and more likely a better approach will be taken in the future."

Dallas Democratic State Representative Roberto Alonzo said to question the loyalty of the teacher and school district is unfair.

"This is a class," Alonzo said. "This is not doing allegiance to Mexico, it's not you know you are going to be part of Mexico, this is just a class to learn Spanish - to learn an aspect of what is Texas."

Brinsdon said she's been pulled from Santos' class and gets her lessons separately now. Despite the controversy, she has no regrets.

"I really hope that I was an inspiration to a lot of youth in America to stand up for what's right," Brinsdon said.


Sunday, February 24, 2013

Gun Companies Boycotting Law Enforcement In Anti-Gun States Grow By More Than 700% In 1 Week

Freedom Outpost
February 23, 2013 

The list of companies that have decided to stop selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies, in states that are hostile to the Second Amendment and putting forth gun control legislation, is growing and has grown more than seven times the number that I informed you about one week ago today.
Previously I listed the following companies:
Now the list has expanded to include:
Jeffrey Norton, of Norton Firearms, issued a statement on the company’s website:
Norton Firearms, Inc. is a strong defender of the US Constitution, not only the 2nd amendment. We believe that a government that restricts it Citizens from executing their Constitutional Rights is no longer a government for the people or by the people. It is our policy not to sell our products or services to any organization that tries to diminish the rights given to us by our US Constitution and our Creator. If you are a government agency with a policy of restricting our Constitutional Rights we ask that you take our tax dollars and spend it somewhere else. I am sure there is some profiteering communist foreign company that will be glad to take our dollars for their gain. We will only sell to law abiding, Citizens and those agencies that truly support and will defend The US Constitution.
Others, like Kiss Tactical, posted to their Facebook page:
On Saturday I refused to sell a AR-15 rifle to a police officer from California. He came into my shop and wanted to buy his duty gun in AZ because the same gun in his home state would cost him more. I told him that I would not sell him the gun even though he had his department letter saying he was able to buy it. I told him that if the gun was not legal for law abiding men and women in CA I would not sell it to him. After he told me that “civilians don’t need them type of guns,” I asked to leave my shop. He stomped out mad.
I have made a decision to not sell to any gun to police department that are not legal for civilians. We build custom AR-15 and have sold more then a few to cops in a few states. I am not sure how this will effect us but as we grow and our name gets out there more we will not change this policy.
Following New York’s gun control laws, Steve Adelmann, of Citizen Arms, made the following statement on the home page of his company’s website:
”Due to legal, ethical and moral concerns, Citizen Arms offers only those custom firearms that are legal for all lawful citizens of a given state to possess, regardless of law enforcement status. LE personnel living in states where citizens must have restrictive features will only receive like product support from Citizen Arms. We’re very appreciative of the sacrifices made by the law enforcement community but we’re even more appreciative of the right guaranteed to all law-abiding US citizens by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: ‘A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’”
If you know of other companies that are joining in this protest against attacks by tyrannical Federal and State governments, please click on the “Contact” button at the top of the page and send me a link to the company’s statement and I’ll add it to the growing list. Please consider supporting companies like these as they value freedom and the responsibility we have to both keep and bear arms.
Firearms Policy Coalition offers a digital option for those wishing to send an email encouraging companies to get on board with this movement.
Ronnie Barrett posted the following letter at the company’s Facebook page:
Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies.
Elected state officials of New York, having been sworn to protect our Constitution, have instead committed an offense against it and their citizens by stripping inalienable rights duly protected and guaranteed under the Second Amendment. By their deliberate and sinister actions, these officials now cause their state and local policing agencies to enforce these unconstitutional and illegal so called “laws”.
By current law, Barrett cannot be an accomplice with any lawbreaker, therefore, cannot and will not service or sell to New York government agencies. Barrett also applies this stance to the individual elected official who, as a matter of public record, has voted for or created regulation that violates the constitutional rights of their citizens. This is an expansion of our 2002 ban against the California government due to their second amendment infringements, and shall apply to any future violators.
In the course of world history there have been officials that strip inalienable rights from the people that were given to all by our Creator. Most of these officials inevitably come to trial, some do not.
Intentionally violating constitutional rights by officials that have sworn to uphold them should have severe prison sentences.
With the clear vision of horrible events in history repeating itself, all manufacturers of firearms or related equipment remaining in partnership with such violators should have a respectable fear of being found with the guilty on their day of trial.
During this era of assault on liberty, Barrett will remain steadfast in our efforts to serve law-abiding citizens of all fifty states, and stands together with you in the struggles we will fight and win.
Ronnie Barrett
Chairman and CEO
UPDATE: Phil Flack of P.F. Custom Guns in Asheville, N.C. sent me this message:
Effective immediately, P. F. Custom Guns will not sell to or support in anyway Government agencies in states where their elected Officials are destroying our Constitution and American way of life for the citizens of their state. While we are all shocked at recent tragic events in our nation and we send heartfelt prayers for the Families of the victims. Knee jerk reactions from purely political opportunist, in my mind, just a slap in the face to these Families. These same politicians should be apologizing for their past actions of not allowing free citizens the God given right to defend themselves, their homes and certainly their children. This is NOT the Country that I put on a uniform to defend. I will not stand by or continue to support any State Government or their agencies or sub-divisions that do not fully support our Constitution.
UPDATE: George Pouliotte of Ammodump International LLC wrote to tell me that his company has been refusing to sell firearms to states hostile to the guns and gun owners since 1989. “This is not new to my company,” he wrote.

Read more:

NRA uses Justice memo to accuse Obama admin of wanting to confiscate guns

Saturday February 23, 2013

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is using a Justice Department memo it obtained to argue in ads that the Obama administration believes its gun control plans won’t work unless the government seizes firearms and requires national gun registration — ideas the White House has not proposed and does not support.
The NRA’s assertion and its obtaining of the memo in the first place underscore the no-holds-barred battle under way as Washington’s fight over gun restrictions heats up.

The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department’s leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Obama’s. A Justice Department official called the memo an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy.

The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.
It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.

The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”

The administration has not proposed gun registration, buybacks or banning all firearms. But gun registration and ownership curbs are hot-button issues for the NRA and other gun-rights groups, which strenuously oppose the ideas.
Justice Department and White House officials declined to provide much information about the memo or answer questions about it on the record.
The memo has the look of a preliminary document and calls itself “a cursory summary” and assessment of gun curb initiatives. The administration has not released it officially.

But the NRA has posted the memo on one of its websites and cites it in advertising aimed at whipping up opposition to Obama’s efforts to contain gun violence. The ad says the paper shows that the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation” and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration” — ideas the president has not proposed or expressed support for.

“Still think President Obama’s proposals sound reasonable?” Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief Washington lobbyist, says in the ad.

Last month, White House spokesman Jay Carney said none of Obama’s proposals “would take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.” Other administration officials have said their plans would not result in gun seizures or a national gun registry.

Justice Department official who would only discuss the issue on condition of anonymity said the NRA ad misrepresents Obama’s gun proposals and that the administration has never backed a gun registry or gun confiscation.
While the memo’s analysis of gun curb proposals presents no new findings, it is unusual for a federal agency document to surface that raises questions about a president’s plans during debate on a high-profile issue such as restricting firearms.

Obama wants to ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines exceeding 10 rounds that are produced in the future. He wants universal background checks for nearly all gun purchases. Today, checks are only mandatory on sales by federally licensed gun dealers, not transactions at gun shows or other private sales.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Obama’s Terrorist Arming

Walid Shoebat
February 24, 2013

Theodore Shoebat talks on The Dove with Perry Atkinson to talk about the Obama administration’s support for jihadists in Syria.

Biden says Administration Doesn't Have Time to Prosecute People Who Lie on Background Checks


As has been widely reported, an NRA representative recently met with an Obama administration-directed firearm task force led by longtime gun control supporter Vice-President Joe Biden.  It came as no surprise that the meeting had little to do with keeping our children safe and much to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment.  But you may be surprised to know one of the revelations that came out of the meeting.

Jim Baker, NRA-ILA's Director of Federal Affairs, represented NRA at the meeting.  As detailed in a recent Daily Callerarticle, Mr. Baker was given five minutes to present NRA's concerns and the approach NRA saw as being the most effective way to safeguard our children.  During those five minutes, Baker mentioned the need to vigorously prosecute existing gun laws.  He further noted the low number of prosecutions for falsifying information on Form 4473s, and the low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes in general.

In response to Mr. Baker's comments, Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."  That's right:  Biden said the administration just doesn't have time to prosecute crimes (felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison sentence) under existing laws, but is proposing a host of sweeping new laws.  

According to federal statistics cited in the Daily Caller article, in 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, and 40 additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession.  Prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases, although more than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check. Overall, gun prosecutions per capita in 2011 were down 35 percent from the previous administration's peak in 2004.

"We think it is problematic when the administration takes lightly the prosecutions under existing gun laws and yet does not seem to have a problem promoting a whole host of other gun laws," said Baker.   "If we are not going to enforce the laws that are on the books, it not only engenders disrespect for the law but it makes law-abiding gun owners wonder why we are going through this exercise we are going through now."

Commenting on the administration's inability to prosecute persons who lie to obtain a firearm, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox said,  "They don't have time to pursue people who are dangerous, who aren't supposed to get guns, and the message they have sent is literally 'Good luck, go get them elsewhere.'  You can talk all you want," Cox continued, "but until there is a will to follow through, then it is literally just going to paper over the problem and guarantee that bad people continue to have access to firearms and good people will be blamed for it."

Rhode Island: Registration and Gun Tax Bill Would Dismantle Gun Ownership in Rhode Island

February 22, 2013

Legislation introduced in Providence last week represents one of the strongest attacks on the Second Amendment in Rhode Island in years.   House Bill 5573, sponsored by representatives Linda Finn (D-72), Edith Ajello (D-1), Maria Cimini (D-7), and Christopher Blazejewski (D-2), would require all firearms in the state of Rhode Island to be registered – both pistols and long guns.  Current law specifically prohibits the keeping of such a list, and this legislation would directly overturn that law.  Criminals do not use registered guns, and this bill would do nothing to address crime or public safety.  Registration is a dangerous and costly practice that has proven to be a failure in other states and countries.    
The bill would also require fingerprinting, and incredibly, gun owners would be required to pay a $100 fee for each gun registration!  This amounts to a tax on a constitutional right.  And because registration schemes typically cost much more than proponents claim, those fees will undoubtedly increase significantly.  Failure to comply would result in a prison term up to 3 years and a fine up to $3,000.  HB 5573 also requires that sold guns be “equipped with a safety device designed to prevent the unintended discharge or discharge by unauthorized users.”  This vague requirement would put dangerous obstacles in the way of self-defense.  
Under current law, if a NICS check fails to disqualify someone after 30 days, the transaction is approved.  HB 5573 would completely reverse that and block the sale. 
This bill represents one of the most egregious assaults on the Second Amendment that we have seen in Rhode Island in years.  The bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing. 
Your immediate action is required.  Please contact your legislators and let them know that you oppose this outright assault on your Second Amendment rights.
Please Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and strongly urge them to Oppose HB 5573.
Contact information for the members of the House Judiciary Committee is below:
Representative Edith H. Ajello Chairperson

Representative Joseph S. Almeida                                                                     

Representative Christopher R. Blazejewski                                                    

Representative Doreen Marie Costa                                                                 

Representative Robert E. Craven, Sr.                                                                

Representative John J. DeSimone Vice Chairperson                                    

Representative Donald J. Lally Jr.                                                                        

Representative Charlene Lima                                                                             

Representative Michael J. Marcello                                                                    

Representative Peter F. Martin Secretary             

Representative J. Patrick O'Neill                                                                          

Representative K. Joseph Shekarchi                                                                  

Representative Donna M. Walsh