Senator Moran’s Letter to President Obama Urging Repudiation of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty

Senator Moran’s Letter to President Obama Urging Repudiation of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty

Senator Moran’s letter is a compilation of very solid reasons for why the United States should not be participant in the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. I have included two of his six reasons below. Senator Moran states clearly at the end of his letter that the Senate will not ratify the treaty. I hope so. Why would We The People, through our elected representatives, ever want to transfer our autonomy and gun rights heritage to an international bureaucracy? Please read Senator Moran’s letter.

Written by Senator Jerry Moran
October 10, 2013

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We write to express our concern and regret at your decision to sign the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. For the following reasons, we cannot give our advice and consent to this treaty:

First, the treaty was adopted by a procedure which violates a red line laid down by your own administration. In October 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. supported the negotiation of the treaty only by “the rule of consensus decision-making.” But in April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly. We fear that this capitulation has done grave damage to the diplomatic credibility of the United States.

Second, the treaty allows amendments by a three-quarters majority vote. As the treaty is amended, it will become a source of political and legal pressure on the U.S. to comply in practice with amendments it was unwilling to accept. This would circumvent the power and duty of the Senate to provide its advice and consent on treaty commitments before they are assumed by the United States.

Third, the treaty includes . . .

I hope this letter gets some attention.

Read the rest of Senator Moran’s letter at Gun Owners of America.

GunOwners of America – Senator Moran Seeks to Repudiate UN Small Arms Treaty

GunOwners of America – Senator Moran Seeks to Repudiate UN Small Arms Treaty

Although John Kerry signed the UN Small Arms Treaty, other senators who better understand our history, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, are seeking to repudiate the treaty. Senator Moran is now circulating a letter for that purpose. Senator Moran cites the extensive work that Gun Owners of America has done to reveal what the UN Small Arms Treaty is about. It is wrong, and it does undermine our sovereignty.

“[GOA’s Larry] Pratt also contends that the U.N. has a terrible track record in protecting human life. He said the horrors in Rwanda are a perfect example of why the U.N. has no business deciding who should and should not have access to guns.” — WorldNetDaily, June 2013

When you’re dealing with an adversary who hates the 2nd Amendment as much as Barack Obama, you have to fight attacks coming from several different directions.

We know we’ve thrown a lot at you lately. But there’s one other issue we’d like to bring to your attention.

As you know, the Obama administration recently signed the virulently anti-gun UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

Although purporting to regulate international trade in arms, the treaty empowers anti-gun administrations (such as Barack Obama’s) to institute internal gun control, including gun bans, gun registration, and more. In fact, the drafters of the treaty made no secret of their goal of imposing measures such as microstamping on countries like the United States.

GOA’s legislative counsel has done a word-by-word analysis of the treaty, which can be seen here. If left unchecked, the treaty language will give rise a wide ranging series of gun control restrictions, as mentioned above. . . .

Read more here.

Robber With Gun Chased Off By Clerk With Machete

Robber With Gun Chased Off By Clerk With Machete

The robber probably wasn’t expecting to see the clerk pull out a machete in self defense, a rather intimidating looking weapon, for sure. But he did and the robber fled. If you go to the site there is a short video of the incident.

. . . The surveillance video shows the man holding a bag open with one hand while pointing a gun with the other. Police reportedly said the suspect fired one shot into the wall.

The employee, who seemed unfazed, pulled a large machete from under the counter and chased the would-be robber out of the store.

The store owner told the station she got the machete a month ago and that her store has been broken into at least a dozen times.

The suspect is described by police as a young black man with a thin build, about 5’10” tall. He was reportedly wearing a gray mask, black top with stripes on the sleeves, dark pants and black and white sneakers.

Police say the suspect was armed with a .22 caliber pistol. . . .

Read more here.

Gun Rights – How To Win Friends and Influence Enemies? Some Thoughts on Open Carry

Gun Rights – How To Win Friends and Influence Enemies? Some Thoughts on Open Carry

Jack Eldon Jackson provides a very thoughtful analysis of the current polarization in the gun rights vs. gun control debate. Using the Founders/Framers as examples and illustrations, he calmly reminds us how patient they were as they sought to establish the Constitution. They wisely chose not to provoke their enemies, but patiently wrote to demonstrate the superiority of the Constitution. They wanted support for their ideas.

Using that context, he reminds us how polarized we have become as a society with regard to gun rights. And, in some States with ‘open carry’ laws it appears that some gun owners who are zealous of their ‘rights’ have almost adopted an in-your-face attitude with their guns in public. Jackson argues that these gun owners are not helping the cause longterm, but in fact are creating fear, animosity, and opposition to what we are doing.

. . . Unfortunately, fewer people today are willing to take the time to truly understand the serious political, economical, and social consequences involved in America’s current constitutional crisis, especially with respect to the Second Amendment. Case in point, the flippantly polarizing antics of a growing faction within some gun-rights groups. The recent statement by Starbucks’ CEO Howard Schultz “requesting that customers no longer bring firearms” into their stores brings to light a prime example — in fact, showing how some people have become so excited about being in the advocacy game they’ve completely lost focus on the ball.

Over the past year, a small number of gunners in the “open carry” movement have descended upon select Starbucks stores as part of a messaging effort to normalize the public’s perception and acceptance of firearms. To their credit, they purchased large amounts of product and expressed their appreciation for the company’s noncombative (i.e., neutral) stand on the Second Amendment. Sound good?

Not so fast. You see, these people didn’t just show up and financially support Starbucks, they arrived in small platoon-like groups with shotguns and tactical rifles slung fore and aft as they sipped their way swaggering about between adult and child patrons alike!

Gee, I wonder. Wouldn’t a discreet, nicely holstered sidearm have sufficed?

While I can appreciate this group’s anxiety over current events and the urge to exercise their constitutional right, such mindless behavior can only be seen as anything but normal. In truth, such antics only serve to help bring about the very thing we all want least — government intervention. . . .

A very thoughtful article, and I highly recommend it. Are you helping or hurting the gun rights cause? Trying to change an already polarized society’s opinion on guns takes time, patience, and wisdom. Give it some thought and read the article.

Read more here.

Second Amendment Foundation – A Few of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Second Amendment Foundation – A Few of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns

The Second Amendment Foundation has provided the following image. Some of the Mayors are poor examples of trustworthy public officials, and that should lead one to doubt how seriously we should take them when it comes to their concern for our safety, and their efforts to regulate our guns via gun control.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns
An Image provided by the Second Amendment Foundation.

 

See the original image here.

NRA Claims That Mayors Against Illegal Guns is A Front Group for Anti-Gun Extremist Mayor Bloomberg

NRA Claims That Mayors Against Illegal Guns is A Front Group for Anti-Gun Extremist Mayor Bloomberg

Those are strong words from the NRA, but it appears there might be some truth to them. The NRA claims that Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) has stated and done the following (this comes from a recent effort to wake up the folks in Homestead Florida who are considering working with the MAIG group):

. . . “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG) is just a front group for anti-gun extremist New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, founded and funded by him, to promote his radical anti-gun ideas throughout the nation.

Does Homestead really want to work with a national gun ban group that:

Memorialized Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlane Tsarnaev, cop killer Christopher Dorner and other cold-blooded killers as “victims of gun violence” in its “No More Names” campaign.

Uses taxpayer dollars to work against your constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights – despite founder Bloomberg’s vast personal wealth.

Has suffered blows to its credibility so severe that mayors across the country are leaving the out-of-touch billionaire’s group in droves.

Considers your Second Amendment rights an “outrage.”

Has an oddly large number of mayors charged with or convicted of everything from bribery and extortion to sexual assault (to name only a few). . . .

If you click through and read the article on the NRA site, you will find links providing some support for the NRA’s claims.

Read more here.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns – How Effective Are They?

Mayors Against Illegal Guns – How Effective Are They?

The MAIG group’s mission, according to their web site is:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a national, bipartisan coalition of mayors working to make America’s communities safer by keeping illegal guns out of dangerous hands. Co-founded in 2006 by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, the coalition has grown from a committed group of 15 members to more than 1,000 mayors from 46 states, including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, from major cities and small towns around the country.

It appears that their research and gun violence statistics might be incorrect in a couple of areas. John Lott points out the MAIG includes the following in their gun violence numbers:

. . . they list all cases where a police officer or civilian fatally shot a criminal as victims. They also listed all suicides as victims of gun violence, completely oblivious to the fact that research shows that these individuals would have committed suicide some other way. It might also be nice to differentiate gang shootings from other deaths. . .

Read more at John Lott’s site.

Why would they include criminals who were shot by civilians or police officers in their numbers? They also include suicides, and as Lott mentions, folks committing suicide can find alternative ways to do so, whether or not they have a gun. Another area that Lott mentions with regard to the MAIG gun violence research and numbers is not differentiating gang shootings.

I can only imagine that those additional deaths will inflate their numbers and skew their results. How unfortunate for the general public who often rely on these organizations to protect them. Make sure you get a second opinion with regard to the gun violence numbers that are used, as John Lott does.

Read more here.

‘Our Rights and Their Intentions’ – Opinion by Brian Coulter

‘Our Rights and Their Intentions’ – Opinion by Brian Coulter

Brian Coulter has written a solid piece on what the anti-gun folks are about. I will quote part of it here, but please click through and read the rest. Their efforts of anti-gun legislation are lengthy, but do they work? Are we safer? Is there less violence in our culture? Maybe something is wrong. Yes, as Brian says here: “None has curbed crime, and some have made it worse.” Please read this and share it widely.

By Brian Coulter

There are opinions suggesting Second Amendment supporters are unreasonable. Such voices insist those most active in the gun control movement only want to nibble around the edges of our constitutional protections but leave them more or less intact.

They say we should compromise, forgetting we’ve already complied with the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Act, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and the 1994 Gun Free School Zones Act. None has curbed crime, and some have made it worse.

The latter, intended to keep violence away from schools, ushered in a 370 percent increase in gun violence against children. So when does it end?

Attorney General Eric Holder answered this question in 1995, explaining government must “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” which must mean arming murderous Mexican cartels to foment anti-gun sentiment.

Anti-gun crusader Sen. Dianne Feinstein more recently denied any other motives to restrict gun rights, including concealed carry, saying, “It’s not what I’ve done in the past and it’s not what I’m doing right now.”

She’s lying. Video from 1995 has Feinstein talking out of the other side of her mouth, slavering for a defenseless America, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban … Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it.”

Disarming us has long been her obsession and that of many anti-Second Amendment radicals, such as Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who admitted, “We’re on a roll now. We’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” When asked if the “assault weapon” ban was just the beginning, Schakowsky exclaimed, “Oh, absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.”

After being asked if the Second Amendment was a significant impediment to a handgun ban, Schakowsky dared to reply, “I don’t know that we can’t … I don’t think it’s precluded.” . . .

Read more of Brian’s opinion piece, ‘Our Rights and Their Intentions’, here.

High School Student Forced to Remove NRA Shirt Now Receives School’s Permission to Wear NRA Shirt

High School Student Forced to Remove NRA Shirt Now Receives School’s Permission to Wear NRA Shirt

Glad to hear the school changed their mind and have allowed the young student to wear the shirt.

Looking for a shirt to wear that is supportive of gun rights? Check this out on Amazon.

A high school principal has apologized for forcing a 16-year-old student to remove her National Rifle Association shirt last month.

Haley Bullwinkle, a sophomore at Canyon High School, said she was asked to change or face suspension because her T-shirt, which featured a buck, an American flag, and a hunter’s silhouette, violated the school’s dress code and promoted gun violence.

Bullwinkle’s father, Jed, emailed the school’s principal, Kimberly Fricker, about the situation.

Fricker responded saying that the gun on the shirt wasn’t allowed.

The principal, however, had a change of heart on Thursday. Bullwinke’s mother, Stephanie, said Fricker called her and said the teen can wear her shirt. . . .

Read more here.

School Forces Student to Remove NRA Shirt

School Forces Student to Remove NRA Shirt

In the days of political correctness, everything offends the sensibilities of school administrators, and this NRA shirt is no different. Somehow wearing the image of a gun on your clothing is portraying violence. It could, but more than likely, the schools just don’t like the NRA’s stand on the Second Amendment, gun rights and self-defense. We can’t have that message get to the kids.

Years ago, my wife and I took an NRA Basic Pistol course. We were shown how to safely handle the gun. I will never forget the instructor’s words that ‘children used to know how to handle a gun, but the culture has become so anti-gun, kids are afraid to look at a gun.’ And, he is right, if kids knew how to handle a gun they might know what to do when or if they find a gun in the bushes, or in a field, or even in someone’s home. Instead the schools ban any kind of expression with regard to guns.

High school student Haley Bullwinkle, from Anaheim Hills, California, was recently ordered by school administrators to change out of a National Rifle Association t-shirt that she’d worn to class.

The t-shirt featured a buck, an American flag, and a silhouette of a hunter. The shirt says “National Rifle Association of America: Protecting America’s Traditions Since 1871.” Bullwinkle’s father was given the shirt for free when he became a member of the NRA.

On the day she wore the shirt, Haley was called into the principal’s office and told her shirt violated the school’s dress policy, which forbids offensive, violent, or divisive clothing.

“They were treating me like I was a criminal,” she said. “I was not allowed to wear that at school because it promoted gun violence.”

Kimberly Flicker, principal of Canyon High School, emailed CBS-LA recently about the school’s handling of the shirt.

“The shirt had a gun on it, which is not allowed by school police. It’s protocol to have students change when they’re in violation of the dress code,” she said.

Haley’s father has retained an attorney and wants to know what the school defines as violence. Further, he said that if the image of a hunter is deemed offensive, then the school’s Comanche Indian chief mascot could be seen as offensive as well. . .

Read more here.