Rangel: ‘Millions of kids’ being shot down by assault rifles – Washington Times

Rangel: ‘Millions of kids’ being shot down by assault rifles – Washington Times.

By Jessica Chasmar – The Washington Times

New York Rep. Charlie Rangel appeared on MSNBC this morning to opine about the assault weapons ban getting dropped from the Senate gun-control bill.

He made a few claims about politics as usual and the power money can have in this type of a case, but his most noteworthy comment was about his knowledge on crime statistics.

“I’m ashamed to admit it but its politics and its money, The NRA has taken this position, there is no reason, there is no foundation. There is no hunter that needs automatic military weapons to enjoy the culture of going hunting,” the Democrat told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing.

A0cohaHCQAAztNM.jpg large“We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons,” he continued. “Were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue…”

The FBI’s 2011 data says only 323 people were killed by rifles, compared to 728 people who were killed by hands, fists, feet etc. Handguns are much more likely to be used in a homicide with 6,220 killed nationwide in 2011.

 

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns? – Thomas Sowell

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns? – Thomas Sowell 

availabilityThe gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

397024_4268935677955_1569853995_nThere are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm’s clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state‘s recent gun control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.

disarmThese plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don’t know — and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don’t have the facts.

The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one — certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts.

9lhvviMost factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.

How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.

But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither — especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.

When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.

Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to “make a statement” — but all at the cost of other people’s lives.

 

Guns Save Lives – Wayne Allyn Root – Townhall.com

Guns Save Lives – Wayne Allyn Root – Townhall.com.

afreepeopleWhy do liberal politicians and the biased liberal mainstream media (meaning pretty much all media in America but FNC) always come to the wrong conclusion, and usually come up with the wrong solution, in response to every crisis? As an example, we don’t have a “fiscal cliff” crisis because of a tax problem in America. What we have is a spending problem- Obama is the biggest spender of any politician in world history.

The same story holds true with the gun control issue spurred by the tragic Newtown school shooting. The liberal politicians and media are using Rahm Emanuel’s famous saying, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” They are trying to turn a terrible tragedy into a gun problem. Their solution is to try to demonize and ban guns. But the Newtown tragedy wasn’t a gun problem, it was a mental illness problem.

Thank goodness the American public has more common sense than the politicians and media big shots. The latest Rasmussen poll is out following the Newtown tragedy. While 27% think stricter gun control laws are the solution, and 15% want limits on violent movies and video games, a dominant 48% believe the answer is more action to treat mental health issues.

It is obvious that many Americans feel in their gut what the statistics I’m about to share with you prove– that guns do much more than kill (in the wrong hands). More often than not, they save lives and prevent violence.

Here are a few proven facts that are too often missing from the gun debate (Thanks to Gun Owners of America and ZeroHedge.com for these statistics):

Based on a 2000 study, Americans use guns to defend themselves from crime and violence 989,883 times annually. Banning guns would leave about 1,000,000 Americans defenseless from criminals who have no problem acquiring guns illegally.

A nationwide survey of almost 5000 households found that over a five-year period 3.5% of households had a member who used a gun to protect themselves, their family, or their property. This also adds up to about the same 1,000,000 incidents annually.

The Clinton Justice Department identified 1.5 million cases per year of citizens using guns to defend themselves.

Another survey found that Americans use guns to frighten intruders away from a home break-in about 500,000 times annually.

Armed citizens shoot criminals more than twice as often as police each year (1527 to 606).

Each year about 200,000 women use a gun to defend themselves from a sexual crime or abuse.

The Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.

Now that we’ve polled the citizens, how about we see what the felons have to say:

A survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the USA found that 34% had been scared off, wounded or captured by an armed victim of their crime.

40% of felons made a decision not to commit a crime because they feared the potential victim had a gun.

69% of felons knew other fellow criminals who had been scared off or captured by an armed victim.

57% of felons polled agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

whichsignStatistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms.

These facts (and many more too voluminous to show here) prove that guns- in the right hands- defend citizens, families and children. In short, guns save lives.

But for me, it’s always been a personal and emotional argument, even more than a factual one. I’m a proud Jewish American. Over six million of my fellow Jews were enslaved, starved, tortured, and then slaughtered by Adolph Hitler. Before it could happen, in 1938, Hitler banned gun ownership for Jews.

That act on November 11, 1938 (one day after the infamous Kristallnacht) was the beginning of the end for Germany’s Jews. Millions of Jews were left defenseless from that day forward. Just like the criminals in the studies above, who were far less likely to break into a home or attack a victim, if they feared the victim was armed, Hitler only started his murderous genocide after first ensuring his victims were disarmed, defenseless, and helpless.

Will a conservative NRA (National Rifle Association) and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) member like me support reasonable gun control? Of course. Should we ensure that mentally ill people cannot purchase guns? Of course. Should we enforce current gun laws? Of course.Should we do more to ensure that all gun owners are licensed, trained, responsible and mentally competent? Of course. Should we take lessons from Israel’s gun laws that require strict mental evaluation and examinations, as well as rigorous training? Absolutely.

But should we move to ban guns, thereby leaving the law-abiding citizens defenseless and helpless? Never. Not in America.

Should government and law enforcement be the only ones legally able to carry guns? Never. Not in America.

Should government be allowed to take away guns from honest, law-abiding homeowners, business owners, and citizens like me? Only when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Thomas Jefferson put it best:

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

MILLER: Gun-carry ban death rattle – Washington Times

MILLER: Gun-carry ban death rattle – Washington Times.

Illinois forced to allow citizens to carry loaded firearms

By Emily Miller – The Washington Times

bretterbringNew life is being breathed into the Second Amendment. After it was beaten down by activist courts over the decades, the nation’s top justices finally decided two years ago that the founders meant what they wrote.

In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court majority held it was unconstitutional for the Windy City to forbid residents to keep handguns in their homes. On Tuesday, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided the phrase in the Bill of Rights about “bearing arms” has meaning as well.

President Obama’s home state of Illinois is the only state with a blanket ban on carrying a handgun outside the home. The court found this prohibition was unconstitutional. As Judge Richard A. Posner wrote, “A woman who is being stalked … has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress.”

The judge nodded to the state’s position that a gun is a potential danger to more people in public than if only kept at home, but he added that knowing “many law-abiding citizens are walking the streets armed may make criminals timid.” When the bad guys aren’t sure whether a victim can fight back, they’re less likely to attack.

A0cohaHCQAAztNM.jpg largeAlan Gura, attorney for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), argued on behalf of Michael Moore, an Illinois resident who had been allowed to carry a firearm off duty as a corrections officer but was denied a permit as a civilian jail superintendent.

“Illinois’ ban on carrying a loaded firearm for self-protection is now history, and now no other state can come back and ban carry,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb told The Washington Times in an interview Tuesday. The court gave the state legislature 180 days to craft a new gun law “with reasonable limitations” on allowing for carry rights.

Mr. Gottlieb said his organization is paying close attention to whether the lawmakers outside Chicago have enough votes to create a “shall issue” state for carry. In the unlikely event that Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn vetoes the bill, the state would default to full carry rights with no restrictions as a result of the decision. “If Illinois puts in an overly restrictive law, we’ll go back to court again,” Mr. Gottlieb warned.

idiot-controlThe National Rifle Association (NRA) led the fight as well. Attorney Chuck Cooper argued on behalf of Mary Shepard, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in both Utah and Florida but not her home state of Illinois. “This ruling is a major victory for all law-abiding citizens in Illinois and indeed across the country,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The Shepard case has paved the way for the people of Illinois to be able to fully exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Second Amendment activists now need to set their sights on the District, the last outpost where the right to bear arms is not recognized in any way. The D.C. Council should realize it’s only a matter of time before its carry ban is overturned. It should avoid the drawn-out legal battle by giving residents a chance to defend themselves on the mean streets of the District.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

The UN Gun Control Treaty Is Bad for Gun Owners Everywhere – Chuck Norris – Townhall.com

 

The UN Gun Control Treaty Is Bad for Gun Owners Everywhere – Chuck Norris – Townhall.com.

Last time I checked, Americans were responsible for making our own laws. We do not invite foreign nations to have a say in how we govern ourselves within our own borders. Yet if you follow what’s been going on with the United Nations this year, you know that the USA came perilously close to having other countries dictate our gun laws. And the fight isn’t over yet.

The United Nations has been debating an arms trade treaty for nearly a decade now. Though the treaty is ostensibly focused on military arms, it has long been clear that the majority of U.N. delegates consider our personal firearms to be crying out for international regulation, as well. The focus of the treaty would be a demand that governments regulate the sale and possession of firearms worldwide — all of them, including yours and mine.

Though I believe that firearms should not be in the wrong hands, the proposed terms of this global gun control treaty would overreach wildly into regulating the sale of firearms to law-abiding citizens. In other words, the proposed treaty is a mechanism for Iran and other tyrannical powers to have a say in your gun ownership.

The George W. Bush administration wisely opposed this concept, asserting that any agreement to regulate private gun ownership would represent a threat to our Second Amendment freedoms. This proclamation was the death knell for the first U.N. gun control treaty conference more than 10 years ago.

But bad ideas at the U.N. never go away; they just fade until the political climate changes. Treaty discussions went underground for several years — until the Obama administration announced a willingness to consider a new treaty, as long as the parties operated under “consensus.”

The debate reached a fever pitch during a monthlong marathon negotiation session in July. The goal was to disgorge a treaty in time for the Obama administration to sign it before Election Day. The draft treaty was odious on its face. Among other things, it would have required the United States to “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms,” register the identity of the “end user” of those firearms and then report the user’s information to a U.N.-based gun registry. In several drafts, the treaty would have mandated that every round of ammunition be tracked globally.

What’s really ironic here is that the United States already has the most comprehensive system in the world for regulating international arms transfers. Other nations could achieve the stated goals of the treaty process by simply emulating our protocols. But the reality is that the treaty was actually intended as a mechanism to submit our unique Second Amendment guarantees to international inspection — and condemnation.

As I have mentioned, the treaty negotiations broke down this summer, and that is a good thing. But that doesn’t mean the U.N. is giving up the fight. It’s just reducing it into smaller pieces. In fact, in late August, an umbrella organization of 23 separate U.N. agencies, known as the Coordinating Action on Small Arms, adopted the first portion of International Small Arms Control Standards. The ISACS text is made up of 33 separate modules, some 800 pages in total. And they’re just getting started.

What can we do? We can ensure that we have a president who will not support the treaty and a Senate that will not ratify it. That’s not a one-time commitment. Remember that once a treaty is enacted, it can be picked up at any time by a president and Senate. There are smaller gun control treaties that have been floating around the Senate for ratification since 1998.

What can you do? You can make sure that you and every freedom-loving American you know is registered to vote. I’m proud to serve as the honorary chairman of Trigger The Vote, the National Rifle Association‘s nonpartisan campaign to register voters who support the Second Amendment. We’ve made it easy on our website; all the tools to register are there, at http://www.TriggerTheVote.org. If you’re already registered, you probably know someone who isn’t. Share the stakes with that person, and urge him or her to join the rolls of informed voters.

Throughout my life, I’ve been committed to preserving our freedom from threats, both foreign and domestic. This proposed U.N. global gun control treaty may not be an “invasion” in the classic sense of the word, but believe me; over time, it represents the potential for encroachment of the greatest kind. Protect your rights by registering to vote today.

 

MILLER: Exploiting gun tragedies – Washington Times

MILLER: Exploiting gun tragedies – Washington Times.

Bloomberg uses tax dollars to push for gun control in other states

Gun-control advocates have no shame. Before the bodies are buried or families have grieved, political opportunists exploit the tragic murder of innocent people to advance their cases. New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg uses his taxpayer-funded staff to jump all over a shooting anywhere in the country as a hook to call for more restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

The day before seven people were murdered at a Sikh temple in Milwaukee on Aug. 5, Mr. Bloomberg’s organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), started running a TV ad called “Tucson Survivors Demand a Plan,” which demands President Obama and Mitt Romney offer plans to stop firearm killings. The spot was timed to take advantage of renewed attention on the Jan. 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords as her shooter, Jared Loughner, was to plead guilty on Tuesday.

One day after the Wisconsin shooting, Mr. Bloomberg went to a Sikh community center in Queens to call for more gun-control laws. “Just two weeks after tragedy in Aurora, we’ve seen another mass shooting,” the Big Apple’s chief executive stated. “And still the two presidential candidates have not given the American public a plan to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

Since it is already against the law for felons or the mentally ill to get guns, Mr. Bloomberg believes outlawing certain kinds of scary-looking guns — which the left calls “assault weapons” — will somehow stop criminals from committing murder. Hizzoner also said, “guns, I think, are the reason why we have high crime.” He left out the contradictory fact that higher rates of gun ownership are proven to reduce crime.

Media Trackers Ohio recently uncovered emails between Mr. Bloomberg’s mayoral staff and gun-control organizations seemingly trying to exploit the Feb. 27 deaths of three high-school students at a school in Chardon, Ohio. One hour after that shooting, Mark Glaze, director of MAIG, emailed a CNN story about it to official government emails of three Bloomberg staffers and other anti-gun activists. Minutes later, one of the mayoral aides, William Swenson, updated the group with a note “four injured.”

An hour later, Lance Orchid, national organizing director of Gun Violence Prevention, emailed, “Perhaps this is the perfect time to push out the new micro-site petition around guns on campus.” Neither Mr. Orchid nor Mr. Glaze responded to requests for comment.

That afternoon, Janey Rountree, firearms-policy coordinator in the New York City mayor’s office, asked the group to find out how shooter T.J. Lane got his gun and asked, “Are reporters working on this or planning to push the question?” She later wrote, “It may still make sense to talk about guns on college campus in the wake of this shooting.” A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg refused to comment on the emails.

Mr. Bloomberg’s aide Chris Kocher sent the group a note about “membership outreach” that said the group ProgressOhio had created a website for condolence notes from which “email acquisitions will be shared” with MAIG and a “small subset of these names” will be provided to a group called Ohio Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Brian Rothenberg of ProgressOhio complained to The Washington Times, “It’s outrageous to question our sincerity for the condolence page.”

Unlike gun-control groups, the National Rifle Association’s policy is not to make any public comments until after the funerals and memorials. “The gun-control types are so adept at exploiting tragedies that they make ambulance chasers look like Sunday drivers,” one NRA official previously lamented about the speed at which the other side snaps into activist mode. There is a time and place for public-policy debates, but gun grabbers should learn to have respect for victims.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

Negroes With Guns – Ann Coulter – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Description: A Ku Klux Klan meeting in Gainesv...

Negroes With Guns – Ann Coulter – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of “stand your ground” laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC’S Karen Finney blamed “the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.”)

This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.

We don’t know the facts yet, but let’s assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America’s oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country’s history.

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.

(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU’er, but every ACLU’er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)

In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks — even freemen — could not own guns.

Chief Justice Roger Taney’s infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: “[I]t would give them the full liberty,” he said, “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.

Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.

After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted “Black Codes,” denying black Americans the right of citizenship — such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms — while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.

For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.

The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 — passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant — made it a federal felony to “deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property.” This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress’ authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.

Under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant deployed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.

But the Klan had a few resurgences in the early and mid-20th century. Curiously, wherever the Klan became a political force, gun control laws would suddenly appear on the books.

This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.

How’s that “may issue” gun permit policy working for you?

The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence — including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.

A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high — beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.

But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.

Williams’ repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, “Negroes With Guns.” In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.

As the Klan found out, it’s not so much fun when the rabbit’s got the gun.

The NRA’s proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.

In the preface to “Negroes With Guns,” Williams writes: “I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense — and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence.”

Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK. But wherever the truth lies in that case, gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense.

Why We Love Ted Nugent and Why The Left Hates Him – Tea Party Nation

Why We Love Ted Nugent and Why The Left Hates Him – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Sherry Phillips

As you are all probably aware, Ted Nugent was being interviewed at the National Rifle Association meeting and said if Obama was re-elected this year, he would either be dead or in jail by this time next year.

“If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year,” Nugent said in the interview. “If you can’t go home and get everybody in your lives to clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don’t even know what you’re made out of.”

 Here’s the video of the interview:

<iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/QL5zmqbuMxo?feature=player_embedded&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>


I don’t think anyone with a brain cell took what Ted Nugent said as a threat against Obama; however, the left, predictably, went nuts. And because they don’t have anything better to do (like pay their $47 hooker bills), the Secret Service will be interviewing Nugent today.

Brain donor U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the old tried and true Democrat tactic of never letting a situation go to waste and solicited donations from supporters using Nugent’s comments. She called them “despicable, deplorable and completely beyond the pale.”

For his part, Nugent said he was looking forward to meeting with the agents.

“We actually have heard from the Secret Service, and they have a duty, and I salute them, I support them,” Nugent told Glenn Beck on his radio show. “I’m looking forward to our meeting tomorrow. I’m sure it’ll be a fine gathering backstage in Oklahoma.”

Nugent has endorsed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded in their normal pandering to the left style by saying, “divisive language is offensive no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from. Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil.”

Yeah, if Mitt Romney gets in that White House, he’s going to be one tough hombre to deal with. Not.

Why can’t someone like Nugent run for President?

Why didn’t this guy win? – Tea Party Nation

Newt Gingrich speaking to voters at Des Moines...

Newt Gingrich speaking to voters at Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why didn’t this guy win? – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Newt Gingrich is still out there, still working.  Every time he comes up with a great idea, we should all be asking ourselves, “How the hell did we have a candidate this good and end up with someone like Romney as the nominee?”

 Newt Gingrich went to the NRA and dropped a bomb.

 He said that if he were President he would offer an amendment to the UN Charter that would make the right to keep and bear arms a universal human right.

 Wow!

 Gingrich points out that if that were in fact an enforceable right, there would be a lot fewer people killed by dictatorships, fewer women raped and fewer dictators surviving.

 Mitt Romney went to the NRA and offered a generic offer of support for the Second Amendment.  Of course, in years earlier Romney had supported the Assault Weapons ban and other gun control measures.  But Captain Etch A Sketch is saying what ever he has to in order to get the nomination.

 Newt Gingrich understands liberty, which is the most frustrating part about the traction his campaign has not gotten.  Newt points out that our rights come from God, not from man.  Ergo man is not allowed to take them.

 Newt is a man for whom words like Freedom and Liberty are not simply talking points or the punch line for a speech.

 As soon as the nomination is officially his, Romney will tack away from the right.  He is not a conservative and he believes the people who tell him he must move to the middle.

 We will watch with dismay as he does that and if he does get elected, we will watch in disappointment as the conservative ideals he claimed he championed during the primary season are forgotten.

 And many of us will be asking why the GOP did not put Newt Gingrich in the White House.

MILLER: Firing back at gun control – Washington Times

MILLER: Firing back at gun control – Washington Times.

Congress muzzles federal funds used to weaken the Second Amendment

By Emily Miller – The Washington Times

The Obama administration’s anti-gun agenda, which has been sneaking into the federal bureaucracy in recent years, was blasted by Congress last week. Republicans used the $1 trillion omnibus bill for 2012 to shoot back at the sneaky use of federal funds for gun control.

One sentence in the 2,100-page spending bill stopped taxpayers’ money from being used for sham studies designed to make legal gun ownership seem like a public health hazard. The House GOP included a provision in the Health and Human Services appropriations bill preventing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using any of its $30.7 billion funds to “advocate or promote gun control.”

Rep. Denny Rehberg led the charge because, despite Congress‘ holding the line on Second Amendment rights, “the gun control special interest groups haven’t gone away, they’ve just turned to the executive and judicial branches to erode our constitutional rights.” The Montana Republican told The Washington Times, “We know President Obama fundamentally opposes gun rights, so it’s our job to keep a close eye on his administrative actions.”

While most Americans presume federally funded medical research projects focus on cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and other difficult health issues, the NIH – the agency tasked with this mission – instead has wasted more than $5 million since 2002 in an effort to strengthen gun-control laws.

“Since gun control has been rejected by the majority of American people, it isn’t surprising that the Obama administration and their gun-control allies are now forced to find devious ways to build support for their gun bans and other items on their wish list,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action.

The health agency, for example, researched whether adolescents treated for gunshot wounds were more likely to have consumed alcohol and carried a firearm during the period the injury occurred compared with victims of non-gun-related assaults. It took $2.6 million of taxpayers’ money to find out what could have been assumed for free: that teenagers who possess illegal guns, engage in underage drinking and hang out with other ne’er-do-wells are more likely to get shot.

The agency also wasted $2 million to determine if there is a causal relationship between gun violence and the presence of bars and liquor stores. The research was intended to prove the rate of homicides and suicides could be reduced with zoning regulations that kept out so-called “alcohol outlets.”

Another study spent $36,000 to try to prove that a home without firearms was essential to a child’s safety and well-being. “They spent tens of thousands of dollars singling out the downside of gun ownership as part of their effort,” Mr. Rehberg explains. “I haven’t been able to find a balanced study about the upsides of gun ownership for keeping your family safe.”

Mr. Obama’s anti-gun beliefs have sparked a steady increase in firearm sales since he took office. “Better buy it now while I still can,” millions are thinking. Americans who report having a gun in the home in the past year have risen from 41 percent to 47 percent, the highest ever recorded, according to Gallup.

The feds, however, still have their sights on gun ownership. Thankfully, Congress has stopped the Obama administration from barreling ahead with its efforts to put a trigger lock on the will of the American people.