Concealed Carry Would Have Kept Norway Safe

Michael Reagan,

How long would the Norway gunman have lasted in Texas or any state where
concealed-carry laws are on the books? I ran a survey while on a cruise:in
Texas,3 minutes;in Montana,7 to 8 minutes;in Arizona,2 minutes;and in Nevada,3
to 5 minutes.

Had Norway not surrendered to the anti-self-defense nuts,and allowed
Norwegians to protect themselves by legally carrying guns,the massacre might
well have been prevented. There’s a lot of truth in the old adage that if guns
are outlawed only outlaws will carry guns.

That was certainly true in Norway where Anders Breivik,a lone gunman,launched his assault on youth
campers of Utoya Island. According to press reports he fully expected Norway’s
special forces to swoop down and stop him at any minute. It didn’t happen. Faced
with unarmed victims he was given plenty of time to kill 68 innocent people who
could not defend themselves. Had just one of them been armed,Breivik could have
been stopped dead and lives would have been spared.

Moreover,if anyone had paid attention to Breivik’s rants they would not have
been surprised when he acted on them,especially since Breivik had preceded his
attack by setting off a car bomb in the heart of Oslo.

Tragically,Norway’s anti-gun hysteria resulted in laws restricting gun
ownership by law-abiding citizens,leaving them exposed to gun violence at the
hands of criminals such as Breivik,who simply ignore anti-gun ownership laws.
Despite the Second Amendment,which protects American citizens’rights to access
to guns for self-protection,the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms is
under constant assault….

Read more.

The Liberals’ Gun Control Crusade Targets…the Amish?

The Liberals’ Gun Control Crusade Targets…the

April 4th, 2011

Kevin “Coach” Collins,

The double-talking liberal Democrats in Illinois have
voted down a Republican measure to demand that those attempting to vote produce
a photo ID. The arguments they made were the same shopworn nonsense they always
use: “Such
a law will discourage voting”
; “It
disadvantage minority groups”
; etc.
In spite of the ever-increasing movement toward photo identification
everywhere we look, these people are able to kill photo ID bills. They have the
votes in the Illinois legislature and fear their fraudulent voters will not
be able to
keep supporting them if the system were to become honest.
Gun Control is the Liberals’ Religion
The same liberal Democrats who fight to keep voters from having to produce
photo ID have now passed a new law that will demand photo ID for those
who want to exercise their Second Amendment right
to buy a gun.
For most of the comrades living in a socialist-leaning state like Illinois,
assaults on freedom like this are part of life. Nevertheless, not all of
Illinois’ citizens can merely shrug off this law….

Cartoon of the Day: If Guns Kill People….

Growing Rift in Anti-gun Community?

Growing Rift in Anti-gun Community?
Saturday, April 06, 2002
A group of anti-gun lawmakers and gun-ban advocates held a sparsely-attended press conference on March 20 to promote another attack on gun shows, but this effort also included a curious attack on the “Project Exile” prosecution model. The event drew far more anti-gun extremists than actual members of the media, and served as the launching pad for U.S. Representative John Conyers` (D-Mich.) H.R. 4034—touted as the House version of U.S. Senator Jack Reed`s (D-R.I.) S. 767. But was this event merely an attempt by Conyers and his supporters to grab publicity, or does it expose a growing conflict among anti-gunners?Flanked by fellow Representatives Danny Davis (D-Ill.) and Dianne DeGette (D-Colo.), Conyers adopted the anti-gun movement`s universally-accepted shameless strategy of exploiting the war on terrorism to promote attacks on the Second Amendment. Conyers and his cohorts, however, went a step further to promote his legislation. Using a “study” put together by an obscure anti-gun organization called the Pacific Center for Violence Prevention (PCVP), Conyers derided the highly acclaimed “Project Exile” prosecution model—a program that has been widely hailed as helping to lower violent gun crime. This would appear to be an attempt to show how his bill is “superior” to the McCain/Schumer/Lieberman bill (S. 890), which includes cursory support for “Project Exile.”

But there may be more to this latest assault on gun shows than simply just another example of anti-gun lawmakers working to eviscerate the Second Amendment. Does the addition of the attack on “Project Exile” in the anti-gun strategy serve to expose an ever-widening rift within the anti-gun movement?

This rift seems to have started with the launch of the new anti-gun organization that calls itself “Americans for Gun Safety” (AGS), and has widened with the attacks on gun shows. So it is not surprising an anti-gun shows bill would help to better expose the conflict.

On one side of the rift are the more radical extremist groups promoting the Reed bill, which includes the Violence Policy Center (VPC)—an organization that openly advocates banning all handguns—and the Consumer Federation of America (CFA)—which has worked hand-in-hand with VPC on numerous occasions and advocates that every home in America with children be “gun-free.” VPC representatives attended the Conyers press conference but did not release a statement, while CFA`s Susan Peschin put out a release that seemed to indicate her group is entirely ignorant of federal gun control laws. Her statement included the comment, “Representative Conyer`s [sic] bill merely extends federal law from gun stores to gun shows”—a blatant lie, as the same federal laws that apply at gun stores already apply at gun shows nationwide. While the CFA release did not echo the anti-“Project Exile” sentiment of Conyers and the PCVP, it does express support for Conyers/Reed attack over the competing McCain-Schumer-Lieberman/Castle-McCarthy (H.R. 2377) anti-gun show bills, which both include language supporting “Project Exile” as a sop to pro-gun Congressmen.

But perhaps far more indicative of this growing rift within the anti-gun community was the distribution at Conyers` press conference of a recent American Prospect article attacking AGS. The article (a link to it can be found on the VPC website) explains how Internet billionaire Andrew McKelvey began funneling millions of dollars into the gun-ban lobby formerly known as HCI—McKelvey briefly held the position of HCI Board Member—then, to the apparent chagrin of the already established national anti-gun organizations, started his own anti-gun group, AGS.

Many anti-gun groups at the state level were initially enticed to align with AGS by the allure of McKelvey`s millions, but are now trying to distance themselves from AGS due to its attempt to mis-represent itself as an organization that supports the right to own guns. Most of those state groups are quite open with their extremist anti-gun views, even openly supporting banning firearms. So as AGS began to try to separate itself from the image of being just another anti-gun group, the state groups started dropping away. But AGS has not been able to hide from the fact that one of the goals it has stated as its “top national priority” is the establishment of a Draconian licensing and registration scheme for all gun owners.

So where does this leave the anti-gun move-ment? Still dangerous, of course, and with plenty of supporters in Congress and the so-called mainstream media. But it would appear that anti-gun organizations are now stalling their own agenda by openly fighting over the specifics of their anti-gun agenda. The most radical extremist groups, such as VPC, are trying to vilify AGS because it is not anti-gun enough. Meanwhile, AGS is trying to fool the general public into believing it “supports the rights of individuals who own firearms.” And where does this leave the gun-ban group many people still refer to as HCI? Conflicted, no doubt, as it publicly supports many of the most extreme anti-gun views held by groups like VPC, but also tries to deceive the general public into believing that it does not have all law-abiding gun owners in its sights. HCI has yet to publicly weigh in on Conyers` anti-gun show/”Project Exile” condemnation press conference, and the group has vacillated on the two Senate bills that seek to end traditional American gun shows. Initially, HCI supported both, then changed its position to preferring the Reed bill, but not opposing the Lieberman-McCain bill. Considering HCI began claiming it supports “Project Exile,” but only after NRA helped make it a nationally popular crime-fighting tool, it will be interesting to see how the organization responds to the March 20 event. Will it abandon its “support” of a proven crime-fighting tool, abandon several staunch allies by condemning their attack on “Project Exile,” or simply remain silent, hoping not to get drawn into the growing battle within the ranks of the anti-gun community?

Find this item at:

H.R. 45: Here Comes Gun Control

H.R. 45: Here Comes Gun Control
Posted on January 15, 2009

I said it several times, it wasn’t Obama you had to worry about, but Nancy Pelosi’s House, when it came to gun control. Sure, Obama will easily sign it, unlike what Bush would have done, but, here we go!

H.R. 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
Say, where’s the ACLU when you need them to stand up and say “Nyet!” to a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment?

I found this while perusing the Democratic Underground, but, Say Uncle provides some great information

1. Require licensing for anybody that owns a gun.

2. Would require photographs and a thumbprint

3. Would require passage of a test that covers:

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;
Say Uncle also points to Snowflakes In Hell, which has some great information. Sebastion states

Normally, I’d tell everyone not to worry too much, because it’s probably not going anywhere, but we can’t take anything for granted in this Congress. Right now the bill has no co-sponsors, and has not been scheduled for a committee hearing, so it is no threat right now. But we should keep an eye on it.

Some other interesting points of the Bill

Section 102 (a) (1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant; (what is wrong with a DL?)

Section 102 (a) (8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant; (that sounds rather intrusive)

Section 103 (c) looks to be creating a federal firearms card, with your picture and information. This from the Party that goes ballistic over a national ID card.

Section 104 makes it seem as if all renewals go through the AG of the USA. Does this mean that I have to go to a Federal office to reapply, rather then the Wake Country Sheriff’s office?

That’s all for now, a more in depth look if it manages to get farther in the House.

» Filed Under 2nd Amendment, ACLU, Bill Of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Dems In Charge: Now What?, Domestic Enemies, Government ethics/corruption, Gun Control, Nancy Pelosi, News, Politics As Usual, Supreme Court, U.S. Constitution, U.S. House, liberalism

Going Down, Down Under 2nd Amendment

Going Down, Down Under
by GOA founder Sen. H. L. Richardson, (Retired)

Let’s study the horror of what’s happening to our Australian, English, Canadian and South African gun owning friends. The Aussies, like us, are a gun owning population; or should we say, were. The Australian continent is a vast, arid land, populated with only 19 million people. It also has an abundance of varmints, a pest problem of major proportions. It is little wonder that practically every rural house contained a firearm, used for the control of these bothersome critters.

The crime rate in Australia has been historically low: 1.8 per 100,000. It is an isolated country with no borders for the illegal to slip across. It has been rightfully referred to as a sleepy, peaceful land. That is, until the leftist government implemented a draconian gun confiscation policy.

For years, the Labor party [socialists] and the Liberals [conservative] were closely balanced– a six-percent swing one way or the other could change their parliament. A small but vocal group of hard leftists split off and formed the Australian Democrat Party. They held few seats in Parliament; however, they have been mouthy, and the driving force behind the anti-gun movement.

On April 28th 1996, a maniac shot 35 people in Port Arthur. The media went ballistic, screaming about the evil of “assault” firearms. Australians were shocked. Nothing like this had ever happened in sleepy, peaceful Australia. The shrill cry and incessant anti-gun propaganda paid off and, in just 12 days, Federal resolutions were passed and the states enacted them into laws.

What did they enact? Did they just go after “ugly” guns, those military look-alike assault weapons? Think again! They outlawed every semi-auto, even those “pretty” duck guns, the Browning A5 and the Remington 1100’s. They even struck down pump shotguns; the Winchester model 12 and the Remington 870 are two examples. The law read “Any pump shotgun with a magazine capacity of 5 rounds or less.”

Do you own a Browning BAR rifle? Banned. How about a Winchester Model 100? Out of luck, all semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn’t miss a one.

You may ask, “Surely they left 22’s alone, didn’t they?” Nope, the criteria the government used was simple. If it’s a semi-auto, it’s gone. If caught with one of these “illegal” firearms, the crime was considered serious, punishable by multiple years in prison.

The Australian government offered to buy back all of the listed firearms. They then imposed a 1% tax on everybody to raise the money necessary to secure the “illegal” firearms. The massive 500 million buy back program was quickly, but poorly, implemented. Of the estimated 7 million firearms, roughly 40% are now prohibited. Close to 2.8 million firearms should have been surrendered to authorities. Was it a success? Hardly. Less than 25%, or 640,000 weapons, were turned in.

Gun Control and left-wing politicians said great things about the new law. A university of criminology professor stated, “It is probable that the crime rate will drop by up to 20 percent.”

Nothing of the sort happened, in fact just the opposite took place. In 1997, just 12 months after the new laws went into effect, across Australia homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent, assaults up 8.6 and in the state of Victoria there was a 300 percent increase in homicides. Prior to the new dictatorial anti-gun laws, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms; now, there has been a dramatic increase in break-ins, especially against the elderly.

In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, new figures reveal that the assault rates in the state of NSW has risen almost 20 percent.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now substantially less than Australia, Canada, and Britain. The data from a comprehensive study from the University of Chicago [Lott, Mustard] showed that in these same three countries, people were home almost half of the time when the burglaries were committed.

In the US, it was less than 13%. Fear of firearms in the American home was the reason given.

Again, in Australia, Canada and Britain, all handguns were already severely controlled. Failure to yearly re-register in a prompt manner could bring law enforcement to the doorstep to confiscate the firearm.

Reasons must be given why anyone needs a license. The government lists only 10 reasons for owning a firearm– protection of self and family is not considered a “reasonable” request!

Guns aren’t the only things prohibited.

In 1998, a new law was passed outlawing an assortment of knives. The fine for owning a classic Bowie knife? Up to $10,000 or two years in the crow bar motel. Owning handcuffs is prohibited. Caught with one of these items, the fine is up to $11,000 or up to 14 years in prison.

Hunting anywhere other than private property is now extremely difficult, where one must have written permission by the owner. One has to acquire a permit from government to hunt on government-controlled land. The Australian government is under no obligation to honor hunting requests and it is common for permits to be refused.

American hunters, especially those who hunt on western public lands– take notice! Someday soon we will face the same problem on federal and state lands.

The anti-gun movement is the creature of the most radical leftist elements of the world wide socialist movement. The tactics are the same, with only slight propaganda alterations to fit each country. It’s not surprising that the internationalist nose of the United Nations poked its way into the gun issue. The Sport Shooters Association of Australia stated that they had been “aware of a connection between the United Nations {UN} and Australia’s new so-called ‘national’ gun laws.” Look no further than the UN Security Council’s pronouncements; they endorsed sweeping gun control measures, including a ban on private ownership of assault rifles.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for ways to reduce the global stockpile of some 500 million handguns, rifles, shotguns and assault weapons.

We gun owners are not just fighting for our gun rights; we are fighting for all our freedoms. The Second Amendment just happens to be the linch-pin.

McCain: Chicago Gun Ban Infringes On Rights

McCain: Chicago Gun Ban Infringes On Rights

Obama: ‘What Works In Chicago May Not Work In Cheyenne’

 Gun Rights Ruling May Change Chicago Law

ARLINGTON, Va. (CBS) ― U.S. Sen. John McCain said Thursday that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun ownership showed that the Chicago handgun ban has “infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans.”

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee called the ruling a “landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States.” 

 Tell us what you think of the ruling and gun control.

“For the first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers,” McCain said in a statement.

He criticized Sen. Barack Obama for not signing a bipartisan amicus brief supporting the ruling later issued by the Supreme Court, and singled out the Chicago ban in describing what the ruling should change.

“Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans,” McCain said in the statement.

He also targeted a campaign comment by Obama that said residents of struggling small towns “get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion.”

“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,” McCain said.

In his own statement, Obama defended the Second Amendment, but also echoed the concerns of those affected by gun violence.

He said that while the Supreme Court had overturned the D.C. gun ban, “Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. ”

Obama said if elected president, he would uphold the rights of gun owners, but he said: “I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.”

The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The Supreme Court ruling does not automatically invalidate the Chicago handgun ban, but opens up the possibility of an court challenge that could get it declared unconstitutional.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. 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.

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia. 

In Chicago, a ban on the sale and registration of handguns has been in place since 1982. Only police officers, aldermen and a handful of others are exempt from the ban.

While other firearms can be registered, under current law, handguns cannot be registered and are considered illegal. Several suburbs have similar restrictions. 

The Supreme Court ruling does not automatically invalidate the Chicago handgun ban, but opens up the possibility of an court challenge that could get it declared unconstitutional.

(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)