Gun owners dodged a bullet in 2008 when the Supreme Court confirmed gun ownership is an individual right. In a five to four ruling the Court said a handgun ban in Washington, DC was unconstitutional because the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

What does this ruling mean to us? Probably not as much as we hope. It was a bare majority that ruled in our favor so it could be easily overturned. The ruling applies only to Washington, DC so new court cases will have to determine if it applies to all citizens of the US and all states. And anti-gun politicians, media and groups will fight our rights every step of the way.

It is amazing that four Supreme Court justices could say the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. These are the same four justices that found some kind of constitutional right for one of the most despicable type criminal, a child rapists. Those justices said child rapists could not be executed no matter how badly they hurt the child, unless they killed them. They said the lowlife had some constitutional right to be kept alive, but you and I don’t have the right to own a gun.

Those four justices also found some constitutional right for foreign terrorists captured by our military in other countries. They said those terrorists had the same constitutional rights as United States citizens to our courts. Foreign soldiers captured in battle don’t have those rights, but according to the four justices, terrorists do.

I grew up around guns. They are tools that I can use for hunting, sport shooting and self protection. Anyone can misuse a tool but rational people don’t blame the tool for its misuse.

There is some kind of disconnect from reality when it comes to guns by some people. One of the most amazing comments I have seen about the Supreme Court ruling was by Scripts News Service writer Dan K. Thomasson who wrote “Most disturbing was Scalia’s reasoning that residents of this city — and before long probably every other city — can now hold off a bandit with a gun in one hand while dialing the police with another.”

I hope I will have a gun if I catch a bandit, whether I use my other hand to call the police or not. I am sure Thomasson would rather we cower in a corner while the bandit does whatever he wants to do to us, probably with his illegal gun.

Although the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting this decision does protect hunters, too. At least it protects us until the Supreme Court gets one more judge that thinks child rapists and terrorists have rights you and I don’t have.

Then presidential candidate Barak Obama was shown in an interview nodding his head and saying yes, he supported the DC gun ban. But he also says he believes the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Talk about “doublespeak” and a disconnect from reality! How can you believe we have a right to “keep and bear arms” while supporting a law that makes it illegal to own a gun? His actions, especilly the recent ammo ban, has proved he is against the 2nd Amendment.

Is there any question what kind of Supreme Court justice Obama would nominate?

Scalia also wrote in the majority opinion: “it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” And “the court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

One gun banner grabbed on this and said “In other words, the debate will continue over such common-sense reforms as background checks on gun sales, restricting bulk sales of handguns and tougher penalties on crooked gun dealers. In fact, by making it clear that such laws do not violate the Constitution, Scalia’s opinion makes it harder to raise Second Amendment objections to such legislation.”

Scalia said nothing about background checks or other “sensible” laws like a limit of one gun purchase a month. What is sensible? According to many gun banners, the DC law prohibiting the ownership of a handgun was “sensible!” To them a complete ban on gun ownership is “sensible.”

We won a victory but the war rages on.

After much compromise HB 89 passed both the Georgia Senate and House on the last day of the session in 2006. This bill relaxes a few of the restrictions on law-abiding gun owners a little but some folks have fought it as hard as possible. Now, seven years later, the foolishness of their crazy claims about what this law would do have been proven totally false. But they won’t let facts fool them into supporting removing restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, or in making more foolish claims.

Governor Perdue had not signed this bill in mid-April. He did sign it, but before he did I said please consider, as a gun owner, that vetoing this bill puts you on the side of those that say law abiding gun owners are dangerous and can’t be trusted. It puts you on the side of those wanting laws that affect law abiding citizens and have absolutely no effect on criminals.

Right now you can take a concealed gun into a restaurant if it does not sell alcohol. Under HB 89 those with concealed carry permits would be able to take their gun into a restaurant that sold alcohol if they not drink any themselves. Seems reasonable, but the Georgia Restaurant Association has done all it could to scuttle this bill and urged Governor Perdue to veto it.

That seems strange. It is legal right now to carry a gun into 75 to 80 percent of Georgia restaurants because they don’t serve alcohol, according to bill sponsor Representative Tim Bearden. (R 68) So why is it such a problem to that group? Do they represent only restaurants that serve alcohol? Why are they afraid of you and me?

I have been trying to get access to a list of all members of the Georgia Restaurant Association. If they don’t trust me to carry a gun I certainly don’t trust them to prepare my food safely! They list their officers and board members and the restaurants they own on their web site at http://www.garestaurants.org/about/

It is no surprise the Atlanta Journal Constitution was fighting a law that removes some of the restrictions on the civil rights of law abiding gun owners. Jay Bookman tried to play psychologists in a laughable column published in the Atlanta Constitution on April 10. He claimed gun owners wanted to carry their guns with them so they could play hero and save people.

Maybe Bookman has this complex and is trying to transfer it to others, but everyone I know with a carry permit, including me, wants to carry a gun for the same reason I carry a fire extinguisher in my truck. I have no desire to become a fireman or a hero saving others but I simply want to be able to take care of myself.

That seems to be a concept Bookman and his cronies can’t understand. Do they have fire extinguishers in their vehicles or are they willing to call for help if there is a fire and wait while it burns? How are guns different?

Bookman even admits in his column: “As a practical matter, those changes won’t matter much. The folks who want to drive around with a loaded pistol beneath their front seat are going to indulge in that foolishness regardless of what the law says. And armed permit holders won’t suddenly start using their weapons to either save or take lives in restaurants or parks.”

That Bookman knows this makes his other claims look even more foolish. If he knows and admits this bill would only affect law-abiding gun owners, not criminals, why is he so opposed to it?

Senator John Douglas (R 17) has been a strong supporter of this bill. In a letter to the Governor he stated: “Two years of work went into the final version of the bill and we took care of virtually every concern with the exception of those who would allow no gun rights. Please do not veto the bill.”

That, among other things, really makes another AJC columnist fighting gun owners rights look silly. In a column published on April 16 Maureen Downey claimed “House Bill 89 passed the General Assembly in the hectic final hours of the 2008 legislative session without any time for debate, catching both the public and law enforcement off guard.”

The bill was worked on for TWO YEARS. Seems folks at the AJC just can’t get their facts right on anything dealing with guns. Her column goes on to make many more incorrect claims. Fortunately, you no longer have to get your information from anti-gun biased sources like the AJC.

If this bill is still in limbo please let Governor Perdue know it is a good bill that needs to be signed by calling his office at 404-656-1776. Be polite, be short but be sure he knows you think this is a good bill.

Have you ever noticed how often, when an arrest is made, one of the charges is “Possession of a firearm by a felon?” The front page headline story of the Friday Griffin Daily News is the latest example that caught my eye.

I have two questions. One, where did the felon get the gun. It is totally illegal for a felon to buy or possess a firearm. So how did they get around the much heralded “Brady Law” that is a pain for law abiding gun owners but a law those that can not legally possess a gun easily sidestep.

Are there any studies of these felons getting guns? Folks that like to get more laws passed about things they fear or don’t like call for extending the Brady Law. How much sense does it make to extend a law that is not working?

Two, what is done to these felons possessing a firearm? Are their sentences of jail time extended? Is there any additional punishment for breaking the firearm law while they are breaking other laws? If not, why not? It is my understanding the charges of possession of a firearm by a felon are often dropped or bartered away in pretrial negotiations.

So why have a law that is useless? Even less sensible is passing the laundry list of additional gun laws the gun banners hope for, since the ones on the books already are not being prosecuted, enforced or doing any good stopping bad guys from getting guns.

Do you have an Alabama Carry Permit, allowing you to carry a concealed weapon? Could you pass the fingerprint background check and get one if you wanted to? If so, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers you a dangerous person.

The silly anti-gun Brady Bunch sent out at least seven emails in the two weeks before the Vitter Amendment was voted on a few years ago. The Vitter Amendment was an amendment to the Department of Defense funding bill that would have allowed people with a gun license from one state to carry a gun in other states.

Right now you can drive in every state in the US with a driver’s license issued to you in your home state. You still have to obey local traffic laws, and the Vitter Amendment said you had to obey local gun laws when in other states. But the gun control fanatics went crazy opposing this amendment.

This is a quote from a July 9 Brady Bunch press release on the Vitter Amendment: “This legislation would force states, your state, to allow dangerous individuals to pack heat in public.” So they consider you a dangerous individual if you have a gun license! Here is more from a July 17 press release: “Very dangerous legislation that would force states, your state, to allow dangerous individuals to carry loaded guns in public could be voted on as early as Monday, July 20. And we must stop it!”

This amendment failed by a 58 to 39 vote in the US Senate. No, 58 US Senators voted in favor of your rights. Only in the US Senate is a 58 in favor to 39 against vote a defeat!

But the Brady Bunch was ecstatic! On July 22, after the Vitter Amendment lost although it got 58 yes voted out of 97 cast, the Brady Bunch crowed “You helped stop the gun lobby’s legislation that would have forced states to allow dangerous individuals to carry loaded guns in public.”

Yep, now law-abiding citizens like you and me who have gone through a fingerprint background check to get a concealed carry permit can’t cross a state line and be legal. No doubt someone planning on robbing a convenience store across the state line will stop and leave their illegal handgun in the car because this amendment failed.

It is not rational to limit law-abiding citizen’s rights thinking criminals will obey laws. By definition, criminals break laws. All gun control laws do is disarm law-abiding citizens and make them venerable to criminals.

Both Senator Shelby and Senator Sessions voted in favor of this amendment to protect your rights, as did all but two Republican US Senators. There were 37 Democrat votes against your rights.

Thank Senator Shelby and Senator Sessions for voting to protect your rights. And also thank Troy King, Alabama State Attorney General, for signing a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressing his opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.

King is one of 23 state Attorneys General, the top law enforcement officers in each of their states, to sign this letter. That is amazing. The top law enforcement officers in almost half our states oppose renewing the assault weapons ban. Kinda makes claims that banning these guns will reduce crime look stupid, doesn’t it?

So far only US Attorney General Eric Holder is the only one talking about bringing back this useless ban. Most elected officials realize it is a useless law and will hurt them politically, but unfortunately there are unelected folks like Holder that can affect our gun rights.

Keep a watch on our elected officials but keep a closer watch on those unelected bureaucrats that control our lives.

The comic character Pogo famously said “We have met the enemy and he is us.” I often feel that way about Georgia groups that are supposed to support gun owners. We bicker among our selves over trivial matters and almost seen to support Brady Bunch like gun control groups rather than supporting our right to keep and bear arms.

This was what was happening seven years ago.

Right now the Georgia legislature is playing ping pong with HB 89 that removes some restrictions from Georgia gun owners. It has been referred to a House/Senate Conference Committee, a place bills often go to die. At least part of the reason a bill supporting gun owners is having a hard time passing is the disagreement of groups that are supposed to support gun owners’ rights.

Did you know you can not legally carry your gun in a state park, even if you have a carry permit? Did you know that you could be walking down the street with your legally concealed gun, walk up on a group protesting something, and suddenly break the law simply because you had your gun at a public gathering?

The argument over the wording of HB 89 seems silly. Why are law-abiding gun owners in Georgia restricted in so many ways? Why can I carry my pistol into a liquor store but not into a bar? Why can I carry my pistol to a bass club meeting but not to a church meeting? Why am I not trusted based on where I happen to be?

Vermont has no laws restricting gun owners there. Anyone can carry a gun anywhere. According to the Census Bureau Vermont ranked 48th in violent crime in 2004. Georgia has all kinds of restrictions on carrying a gun and we ranked 19th in violent crime in the same report. Law abiding citizens carrying guns are not the problem.

Why do Vermont politicians trust their citizens while Georgia politicians do not trust us? Why are we so restricted in our rights? What purpose do the mish-mash of Georgia gun laws serve, other than to trap law-abiding citizens that make an honest mistake. They certainly do not reduce crime.

The latest shooting on a college campus is a perfect example of the stupidity of gun laws. An insane murderer killed five innocent students at Illinois State University. He had a shotgun and four handguns in a “gun free zone” on campus. That rule did nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens and make them easy targets. We deserve the right to protect ourselves without running afoul of some state law or university rule.

On a more positive note,

Shooting wire 2/15/08
Thirty one state Attorneys General have weighed in on the case, signing an amicus brief that supports the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in striking down the District of Columbia’s thirty-plus year gun ban. Since I’m one who criticizes pretty easily, it seems only appropriate that I list the names of those Attorneys General: Troy King of Alabama, Talis Colberg of Alaska, Dustin McDaniel of Arkansas, John Suthers of Colorado, Bill McCollum of Florida, Thurbert Baker of Georgia,

And a final note: one “inquiring mind” called me this week to ask if I would consider assembling a list of those Senators and House of Representatives who didn’t sign the congressional amicus brief. I worked on it, but simply didn’t have the list together in time for today’s deadline. Instead, I’m going to list those who did sign the brief. If you don’t see your elected representative’s name on the list – they didn’t support your rights as a gun owner or individual.

Here’s a list deserving of a thank-you from each of us. And an extra thanks to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas for leading the bi-partisan effort to let the Supreme Court know a majority of the legislative branch still supports individual rights and freedoms.

Vice President Richard B. Cheney in his capacity as President of the Senate

Georgia – signed
Sen. Saxby Chambliss
Sen. Johnny Isakson
Rep. Jack Kingston (GA-1)
Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-3)
Rep. Tom Price (GA-6)
Rep. John Linder (GA-7)
Rep. Jim Marshall (GA-8)
Rep. Nathan Deal (GA-9)
Rep. Paul Broun (GA-10)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Rep. John Barrow (GA-12)

For the past few weeks, a battle’s been quietly raging between legitimate firearms dealers and two of the major companies that process credit card transactions. The companies, Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp., have both refused to process any non face-to-face credit card transactions involving firearms. That refusal includes both business-to-business transactions between federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.

Yet the companies both continue to insist they’re neither anti-gun or anti-firearm industry.

Jan 16 shooting wire

BAD SIGN FROM THE NORTH
The 82,000 members and 655 member clubs of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, is criticizing an announcement by the Ontario Chief Firearms Officers of a “pilot initiative” targeting owners of firearms in the City of Toronto who are over the age of 75 and possess more than ten firearms. The “initiative” would subject the citizens to a mandatory search of their premises by officials. The OFHA says such a program would remove Canada’s senior citizens from protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Subsequent to this announcement, the Mayor of Toronto and the Premier of Ontario Province have called for a total ban on hand guns across Canada.
Outdoor wire jan 17

Written several years ago, the idea you should examine all gun laws carefully apply even more today.

The reaction to shootings in public places has me shaking my head but I guess I am not really surprised. During the past several months there have been mass murders at Virginia Tech, malls and a church. At the New Life Church in Colorado an armed church member shot the murderer, stopping him and making him kill himself.

The reaction to these senseless killings? Many officials have promoted victim disarmament zones making it illegal for you to have a gun to protect yourself. It is unreal how those folk’s brains must malfunction. How do they think preventing law abiding citizens’ right to have a gun will stop insane murderers?

One of the most graphic examples of their foolishness was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show by co-host Mika Brzezinski. Talking about the New Life shooting, host Joe Scarborough said “One person with a gun can make a big difference.” He seems to get it.

His co-host’s response? “Oh gosh, no! No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no.” Scarborough then said: “One person with a gun in the right place can make a big difference.” Brzezinski responded “You know, that is the most inane statement I have ever heard.”

Not only is she inane, she is insane. How can any rational person deny that the murderer at the New Life Church was stopped by a person in the right place with a gun? I guess the rational part is the key. She is not rational when it comes to guns.

Here in Georgia we have some of the same kinds of problems. Last year the Georgia Legislature refused to pass a bill that would allow employees to have guns in their vehicles in open parking lots. The Legislature said it was OK if employers told their workers could not have guns. This bill did not even apply to gated, secure parking lots, just parking lots anyone could enter.
The NRA supported a bill to make it illegal for employers to disarm their employees. The Georgia Sport Shooting Association, the NRA state affiliate, opposed the bill, somehow finding property rights involved in open parking lots with unrestricted access by the public.

This bill is being presented again this year with a few modifications. I have been told the GSSA will support it. I look forward to seeing the bill. It had not been pre-filed as of mid-December.
The Georgia Legislature this year may go even further in supporting gun owners. The Second Amendment Protection Act has not been pre-filed but I understand Representative Tim Bearden, R-Villa Rica, will introduce this bill this legislative session. This proposed bill is being supported by the GSSA. It sounds good but I would like to see a copy of it before saying it should be supported.

The group Georgiacarry.org is supporting legislation that removes restrictions on law abiding Georgia gun owners. It is unbelievable that a person in California with a state issued gun carry license is not as restricted as we are here in Georgia. In fact, Georgia is one of the most restrictive states in the nation when it comes to where carry permit holders are allowed to have their guns.
In Georgia it would have been illegal for the woman that shot the killer at New Life Church to have her gun with her, even though she had a carry permit. There may have been a way around it because she was considered on the security force at that church, but why is it illegal in Georgia for honest, law-abiding citizens with a carry permit to have their pistol at a church?

There are also other areas of the law that need to be changed. If you own a business and don’t have a carry permit you are still allowed to have a concealed gun on you in your home and at your business. But you can’t have it concealed in your car. So if you put a gun in a shoulder holster at home, drive to your store and go in, you have broken the law unless you took the gun out of the holster and put it in plain view or in a glove box.

That is strange. Citizens are trusted to carry a gun concealed unless in their car but they can still have the gun, it just must be visible or in the glove compartment. How in the world does that have anything to do with preventing a criminal from misusing a gun?

Watch the legislature as they start their session this month. Examine each bill carefully and make sure they support gun rights and don’t do things that further restrict law abiding gun owners.

The all out assault on guns, gun owners and the 2nd Amendment continues at an unbelievable pace. One of the main reasons it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on guns and what needs to be done to actually make a difference in violence is this concentration on guns as the problem, and the misinformation and outright lies pushed constantly.

Assault weapon is a term you hear all the time. What is an assault weapon? I guess anything used to assault anyone, from pencils to a piece of rope can be called an assault weapon. The true definition of an assault weapon is an automatic weapon that will fire steadily with one pull of the trigger, or fire in three round bursts. All those guns are already tightly regulated and almost impossible for citizens to purchase or own.

The liberal media and gun ban groups seem to classify any semiautomatic gun as an assault weapon, since they usually say “military style assault weapons.” They usually mean a gun that looks ugly and holds more than ten rounds. That can include anything from my Remington .22 to the now famous Bushmaster AR 15. To ban “assault weapons” can mean ban any gun you don’t like.

High capacity clips are one of the biggest evils if you listen to the media. But many guns hold more than ten rounds. And even if bigger clips are banned, you can change clips in seconds, with little difference in the number of bullets you can shoot quickly between a smaller clip and a bigger one.

The National Rifle Association is demonized daily. The NRA is a gun rights organization that supports hunting and shooting. They also have many training segments, with over 1100 certified police officer trainers. The NRA offers safety training programs for schools and other groups, and insists on safe and legal use of guns.

The NRA has 4.3 million members. Yet the media claim they are a shill group for gun manufacturers and sellers because those businesses support them. Any group that supports an activity will be supported by businesses that sell to those kind of activities. The bass tournament trails are supported by fishing equipment manufacturers but they are certainly not shills for them, any more than the NRA is a shill for gun businesses.

More than 100,000 people have joined the NRA in the past six weeks. The biggest gun ban organization, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, has 28,000 members. That alone should tell you who citizens support, regardless of the claims by the media and gun ban organizations.

Cop killer bullets and hollow point bullets are another evil that gun ban organizations claim only the military need. But the military uses full metal jacketed bullets. Hollow point bullets and soft tip bullets are used for hunting. In fact, bullets that expand are required for big game hunting. So banning them bans hunting bullets. And cop killer bullets are usually defined as any bullet that will penetrate a bullet proof vest, which means any high power rifle bullet suitable for deer and other big game hunting.

Big bullets is a term many gun banners use to define the .223 round used in the Bushmaster and many other rifles. But the .223 is almost the smallest center fire bullet available, and just barely legal for deer hunting. My old 30-30 fires a round almost half again as big around as the .223, and is more powerful since it has more powder. All higher caliber big game rifles fire a much bigger and more powerful bullet.

You will hear about the number of kids killed by guns each year, but the huge majority of those are 18 to 21 year olds, not young kids, and many of them are gang bangers that shoot each other with illegal guns. Any kid killed is a tragedy but no gun ban or bullet ban will affect the number.

The misinformation goes on and on and only leads people like me to work harder to stop misguided laws that only affect law-abiding citizens like me.

Hate is an ugly thing. I have never hated anyone so much I wanted to kill them. But many seem to hate me so much they want to kill me, simply because I am a member of the National Rifle Association and support the 2nd Amendment.

Gun ban fanatics have come unhinged in the past month or so(in January 2013), with many calling for the murder of NRA leaders and members. A Texas state democrat party official, John Cobarruvias, labeled the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” and called for the killing of NRA leaders and supporters with the twit ”can we now shoot the NRA and everyone who defends them?” That includes me.

Author Joyce Carol Oats twited “Another NRA sponsored massacre.” She accused politicians supporting the NRA of “felony homicide” and asked “If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?” Sounds like she wants me shot. In response, actress Marg Helgenberger twited “One can only hope, but sadly I don’t think anything would change.” So she hopes I will be shot?

A talking head on a big “news” cable channel has become so livid and anti gun he has had a petition sent to the White House asking he be deported back to his native England. He comes to the US, calls gun owners like me idiots, and demands we change our laws to suit him, and he is not even a citizen of our country. And he hires armed bodyguards. But such stupid behavior is expected of him, he was fired from his job as a judge on one of those competition shows on TV. He was so abrasive on that show he was fired.

Examples of such hate speech go on and on. From politicians and actors, it seems many hate me. There is even one silly ad running on TV that shows a bunch of actors demanding we get rid of guns. Strange thing, as a funny response shows, most of them make millions each year on very violent movies, showing them using guns to kill people. And all of them have armed guards. They want to be protected but demand laws that remove self protection from the little people like me.

The claims about guns have ranged from the stupid to outright lies. I don’t know whether the commentators are too dumb to find out facts or are lying on purpose. For example, all semiautomatic guns are called “assault weapons.” Their definition includes the Remington .22 I was given for Christmas when I was 12 years old since it is a semiautomatic and holds more than ten rounds. I have killed many squirrels with that gun and still shoot it at targets and varmints. But they want it banned.

It is a given liberal newspapers like the New York Times and the Atlanta Constitution are going to demand guns be banned. But an editorial in the Griffin Daily News by Gene Lyons caught my eye. He claims we “need” only some guns and justifies banning all weapons that are similar to military guns. His justification? He says the 2nd Amendment calls for a well regulated militia and that is the reason citizens gun rights “shall not be infringed,” then says citizens don’t need military styled weapons since they serve no legitimate civilian uses.”

OK, so the 2nd Amendment says citizens need to have guns since we are the militia, a military group, but he says we don’t need military style guns. Strange.

In another editorial in the Griffin Daily News, Cokie and Steve Roberts call for gun bans and claim police know the need for banning guns. But they quote big city police chiefs, politicians rather than real police, in their opinion piece. They include a call for banning guns by the Chicago police Superintendent. Interesting. Chicago has the highest murder rate of any place in the US and the strongest gun laws. That proves gun laws don‘t work, but this guy calls for more. I guess that is a lot easier than facing the real problems in his city.

None of the local police I have talked with think gun control laws work and many police nationwide are members of the NRA, supporting gun rights. I guess they don‘t count, although they are the ones facing the problem, not sitting in some big office telling others how to solve our problems.

You will see claims that no one is calling for banning all guns, just the ugly ones. Yet Bob Beckel, a talking head on TV and a democrat party operative, is honest. He is calling for banning the manufacture and sale of new handguns, and the confiscation of all existing handguns.

The governor of New York has admitted he wants to ban some kinds of guns and confiscate all similar guns that were bought legally by citizens in the US. So he wants the government to confiscate my private property that I purchased legally.

I wish I had a solution. The head of the NRA called for armed guards in schools and was condemned for it, especially by democrats that supported the same idea when Bill Clinton called for hiring 1000 new police officers and putting many of them in schools.

Many hate guns and NRA members so much they are not rational. Don’t take what I say, or what they say, as truth. Check it out! Find out facts before making up your mind.

Got this in email – I do my best to follow them. Do you have any to add? Post them in comments.
!

Gunfight Rules

In a gunfight, the most important rule is ….. HAVE A GUN!!!

These are shooting tips from various Concealed Carry Instructors.
If you own a gun, you will appreciate these rules… If not, you should get one, learn how to use it and learn the rules.

RULES
A : Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.

B : Its always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

C : Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

D : Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arm’s length.

E : Never say “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they should hear is the safety clicking off or the hammer cocking.

F : The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.

G : The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always Win – there is no such thing as a fair fight. Always Win – cheat if necessary. Always Win – 2nd place doesn’t count.

H : Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets …. You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it because it will be empty.

I : If you’re in a gun fight:
(a) If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.
(b) If you’re not loading, you should be moving.
(c) If you’re not moving, you’re dead.

J : In a life and death situation, do something …. it may be wrong, but do something!

K : If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?

L : You can say “stop” or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language; and, you won’t have to press 1 for Spanish/Mexican or 2 for Chinese or 3 for Arabic.

M : Never leave an enemy behind. If you have to shoot, shoot to kill. In court, yours will be the only testimony.

N : You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.
If you believe in the 2nd Amendment, forward to others you know who also believe.

Written back in 2000 this shows gun control fanatics never change.

I lived on a chicken farm while growing up. We had 11,000 laying hens, so I got an early education about gathering eggs, washing and grading them and other jobs that went with having that many chickens.

One of the jobs I hated most was hauling off the dead chickens. Several died each day, and for years we carried them to the corner of a field several hundred yards from the house and dumped them under a big pine tree. Putting up to ten dead chickens in a feed sack and dragging it that far was no fun.

I did learn a lot about buzzards from that chore. They would light in the big pine every morning just after sunrise and wait on a free lunch. They went somewhere else to roost at night, and I can still see the group of them leaving late in the afternoon, circling as they rose higher and higher, then heading out to their night time roost. The next morning they would reverse the process, flying in high and then circling as they dropped down to land in the tree.

That area stunk, and for years I thought it was the smell of dead chickens. I only killed one buzzard in my life, one I happened upon in the woods while hunting. It was at the base of a tree and obviously sick, so I shot it. Looking at it close up, I found out buzzards are very ugly – and they stink! I guess it is the carrion they associate with.

Those buzzards in the pine tree were very lazy. All they had to do was sit in the tree all day, waiting on us to bring them chickens. They did not have to hunt for food, it was delivered. And they were safe since we left them alone.

Each time a gun is misused and a child is killed, Clinton and his cronies remind me of those buzzards. They seem to sit there waiting until there is a tragedy and then gleefully proclaim the need for gun control that tragedy shows.

The last incident of a six year old shooting another six year old at school is used by Clinton to call for safety locks, waiting periods at gun shows and other assorted laws on the gun banners wish list.

I do not understand how anyone could say those laws would have had any effect. The kid that did the shooting lived in a crack house where drugs were used and sold openly. He lived with a 19 year old uncle and was so well taken care of he slept on the floor anyplace he could find room.. His father is in jail and his mother admitted on TV that it was her fault she never saw him or took any time with him.

The gun he used was stolen, as was another gun in the house. I guess Clinton and his flock believe a crack dealer would steal a gun and leave a child safety lock on it. What they really believe is all guns are bad and should be banned. If not, they would enforce the laws already on the books!

There are a wide variety of numbers used to promote gun control. Clinton saying 12 children die each day from gunfire is not the same kind of lie as looking into a camera and telling a bald face lie to the American people, and it is not the same as lying under oath in court as he did, but it is not truthful.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 10 of those 12 “children” Clinton perches over were 15 to 19 years old. I do not consider a 19 year old drug dealing gang member that is shot while trying to sell drugs a child! And I do not think any law passed will have any effect on those kinds of deaths.

According to the National Safety Council, there were 4100 accidental drownings in 1998, compared to 900 accidental firearm deaths. Where is Clinton on this issue? There were 41,200 deaths related to motor vehicles. Does Clinton not care about the thousands of children dying from those causes?

My car has a bumper sticker that says “My President is Charlton Heston.” Maybe after the next election I will not be ashamed of the president of the United States.

By the way – why didn’t Gore mention gun control laws when he was fund-raising in Georgia along side a democratic Governor who opposes almost all kinds of gun control laws? In my opinion, it is all politics!