The Great Obama Gun Grab

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate
CHICAGO, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ --

The following is the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:

Fellow Sportsman,

Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association. I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone.

The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama. Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer.

Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month. Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?

And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens. Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner? By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.

In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him. That's the Barack Obama I know.

http://www.isra.org/

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.This press release was posted on PRnewswire. Posted Wed Oct 15 18:44:24 CDT 2008

Guns Don't Kill People, Doctors Kill People

Study
A:The number of physicians in the U.S. is700,000.
B: Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are120,000.
Calculation: Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

-Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.

Now think about this:Guns:
A: The number of gun owners in the U.S. is80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million..)
B: The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is1,500.
Calculation: The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188

-Statistics courtesy of FBI

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,BUTALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

A Tyrannical Government is brewing

A Tyrannical Government is brewing


"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." -Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

They want to be able to round people up without their having committed crimes, and guns make it harder to do that. This is STRAIT out of the play books of the like of Stalin, Hitler, Milton Obote (genocidal “president” in Uganda), and other tyrannical dictators. The writing is on the wall, but few fail to read it.

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." -President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

And so the mental disease of liberalism continues. Oh and Slick Willy is not the only one, or the last one who is more than willing to desecrate the Bill of Rights in order to preserve the will to power and the will to enslave over and above “The people” who are slowly losing their rights. One day will come and we will be enslaved and many people will be shocked and wondering how they missed it. FOOLS!!!!! The writing is on the DAMN WALL!!!

"You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state." - Michael Dukakis, then governor of Massachusetts, in conversation with Mike Yacino, MA Gun Owner's Action League, and Roy Innis, CORE, June 16, 1986

This is called a police state. Of course that will never ever happen, because violent criminals will still be armed too! This idea of a gun free utopia is insane. Once the guns are removed, citizens become subject, If not sheep and genocidal tyranny is sure to follow along with a sharp rise in violent crime, because the criminal’s hunting ground has become far easier.

“The gun-violence problem is more than the problem of guns in the hands of bad people. Its also a problem of guns in the hands of good people." -Dennis Henigan, Gun control attorney, quoted in a New York articale by Peter J. Boyer. Houston Chronicle, May 24, 1999

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." -U.S. Senator. Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

Wow. He didn’t even bother to be politically correct. Alas a gun grabber reveals their true intent. They don’t give a damn about crime. Crime has no threat to them. Constitutionally powered citizens do and they must become subjects. Disarmament has ONLY ONE purpose to turn the WILL AND THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE into the WILL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT over their SUBJECTS.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

Again, the federal government is showing their hand…to completely disarm the citizens of this great country to strengthen their tyrannical grasp of their subjects. It is all about control and power of those who follow the law.

"I don't believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness... The Constitution doesn't count!" -John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

The Constitution no longer matters to many. A communist state is coming and our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves because we accept tyranny with so much ease. They want to take your rights away. They want to take my rights away. After they get rid of all those who are willing to stand for something, that the shit will really hit the fan. They have enlisted the mass media to help in their efforts to demonize gun owners. The media is blindly forfeiting their rights, because who will they go after next? After all of us gun owners are gone they will go after the media and silence them. The leftist communist media is betraying freedom and upholding tyranny every chance they get. They will have a rude awakening when the government tries to control them next. The government of today has only one desire. POWER. And they will use anything and do anything to keep it. Look at the growth of welfare and government handouts! LOOK AT IT!!!!!! What is it accomplishing? It is making more and more people dependent on the government. But really the government is just training the easy sheep first.

"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." -Josh Sugarmann, "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation", March 1989

This one can go both ways. Either a tool of fear or a tool of truth. Which one do you think the govt is choosing?

"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" ~ Rep. Henry Waxman, D-NY, 5/2001 MSNBC report on .50BMG rifles.

Need I say more? Need I say more?

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. Thomas Jefferson

All men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. Samuel Adams

The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams

Today was the big day

SCOTUS heard the arguments as to how much regulation a city/district can impose on its citizens regarding gun rights.

To me it seemed that Justice Scalia really went out of his way to rake Dellinger (DC's Gun-grabbing lawyer) over the coals. No surprise there.

Here are my favorite quotes.

Justice Kennedy: "So in your view this amendment has nothing to do with the right of people living in the wilderness to protect themselves, despite maybe an attempt by the Federal Government, which is what the Second Amendment applies to, to take away their weapons?"

Justice Stevens “The right to keep and bear arms for common defense” is the normal way of reading it.

Justice Scalia: “I don’t see how there is any, any, any contradiction in reading reading the second clause as personal guarantee and the first one as assuring the existence of a militia... the militia that resisted the British was not state managed….why isn’t it perfect reasonable, indeed plausible to assume that the framers KNEW that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants was not passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people’s weapons. That is how militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully.”

Justice Alito: "If the amendment even partially protect a self right to self defense, how can a total ban withstand?"

Chief Justice Roberts: "What is - what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?... So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's alright if you allow possession of newspapers."

Chief Justice Roberts: ... "If the District passes a ban on machine guns or whatever, then that law - that law would be considered and perhaps would be upheld as reasonable. But the only law they had before them was a total ban. Justice Scalia (interrupts): "Or a law on the carrying of concealed weapons, which would include pistols of course."

Chief Justice Roberts: "I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn't it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can't take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these - how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?... I don't know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?"

Justice Souter: Can we also look to current conditions [for developing reasonable restrictions] like current crime statistics?
Gura: To some extent, Your Honor, but they have certainly...
Justice Souter: Well, can they consider the extent of the murder rate in Washington D.C. using handguns?
Gura: If we ere to consider the extent of the murder rate with handguns, the law would not survive any type of review Your Honor.
Justice Scalia: All the more reason to allow a homeowner to have a handgun

Chief Justice Roberts: So a conscientiouis objector who likes to hunt deer for food, you would say, has no rights under the Second Amendment. He is not going to be part of the militia. He is not going to be part of the common defense, but he still wants to bear arms. You would say that he doesn't have the rights under this Amendment?

Justice Kennedy: "So in your view this amendment has nothing to do with the right of people living in the wilderness to protect themselves, despite maybe an attempt by the Federal Government, which is what the Second Amendment applies to, to take away their weapons?"

Justice Stevens “The right to keep and bear arms for common defense” is the normal way of reading it. "

Justice Alito: "If the amendment even partially protect a self right to self defense, how can a total ban withstand?"

Chief Justice Roberts: “If it is limited to state militias, why would they say the right of the people? Why wouldn’t they say the right of the militia to bear arms?”

Justice Kennedy: "It had nothing to do with the concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that?"

This one bears repeating...

Justice Scalia: “I don’t see how there is any, any, any contradiction in reading reading the second clause as personal guarantee and the first one as assuring the existence of a militia... the militia that resisted the British was not state managed….why isn’t it perfect reasonable, indeed plausible to assume that the framers KNEW that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants was not passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people’s weapons. That is how militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully.”

District of Columbia vs. Heller.

I am getting concerned about this case. The Question Presented is “Whetherthe Second Amendment forbids D.C. from banning the private procession ofhandguns, while allowing the possession of shotguns and rifles.”

Meanwhile, the petition for a Writ of Certiorari is granted stating“Whether the provisions in the D.C. Code violate the second amendment rightof individuals who are not affiliated with any state regulated militia, butwho wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in theirhomes.”

Arguments will be heard on Tuesday, March 18. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00290qp.pdf Both “Question Presented” and the “Writ of Certiorari” could be answereddifferently. The question is whether a district can enact a law without regard to theconstitution.

In Miller vs. Texas, SCOTUS unanimously ruled that “a state law forbiddingthe carry of dangerous weapons does not abridge the privileges orimmunities of Citizens o the United States.” The conclusion seems tosuggest that the Bill of rights refer to the Federal Government, and notthe states.

Likewise in Presser Vs. Illinois, SCOTUS ruled that the Secondamendment only applied to the federal Govt and not upon the states, On the other side, U.S. Vs. Cruikshank in 1876, Brown vs Walker in 1896 andin Robertson vs. Brown in 1987, SCOTUS found that the first ten amendmentsare granted to all free citizens in a way not founded by Govt or theconstitution, but were inalienable rights. This seems to create a paradoxby saying they are inalienable rights for the Feds, but not for the states.

While SCOTUS has treated the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, SCOTUShas allowed for states to enact laws restriction the possession of firearmsin PUBLIC places. That is why the crux will weigh strongly on the phrase“private use in their homes.”

The Brady Bunch Strikes Back

That Paul Helmke idiot is at it again in his efforts to prevent Law Abiding Citizens their constitutional rights to own a firearm.You can read his blog on the upcoming monumental Supreme Court case of DC vs. Heller, which centers on whether or not this law abiding citizen, Mr. Heller, can own a firearm in Washington DC. The Brady Bunch continues to insist they only want sensible gun laws.

However, for them that would mean no one accept law breaking criminals could posses a firearm.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/category/parker-v-district-of-columbia/

The Brady Bunch insists that the courts are in a deep fantasy for even considering the notion that Mr. Heller has the right to own a firearm. The problem is they are more concerned about their political agenda (to grab all guns from law abiding citizens) than to allow due process through the legal and justice system to play out. It is the task on the Supreme Court to uphold and if necessary interpret the constitution.

Why is the Brady Campaign so eager to take this task away from the Supreme Court?It is because they are scared and realize this case has a chance of backfiring on them. It is for that reason they refuse to allow the due process given by the constitution to the Supreme Court and rather make themselves judge, juror, and executioner of the U.S. Constitution. If they are so confident the high court and the U.S. Constitution will side with them, why are they so reluctant to allow the Courts to consider the case?The debate will center over the following words in bold, as will future blogs.

“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.”

Much debate will be spent with the Gun Grabbers claiming only “a militia” can own firearms, while Law Abiding Citizens will claim that the “right of the people” designates the general populous. My stance is clear. The crux of this amendment is “The right of the People” which applies to every citizen on this great country. For this we must look to history and realize that the founding fathers not only intended but expected that every able man be armed with a firearm. This amendment was not written so that a military can exist, but as a means for THE PEOPLE to protect themselves from all threats, including Tyranny by one’s own government.

Between 1768 and 1777 it was the Policy to the British government disarm colonialists of their firearms. If was for this very reason the Second Amendment was written….as a means to protect oneself from tyrannical governments. The Royal British Crown argued just as the Brady Bunch and other Gun Grabbing groups claim today. “You don’t need arms for your own protection. The police and military will protect you.”However, who will protect us from the protectors? Use your brain and review history.

Wherever gun confiscation takes place tyranny, ethnic cleansing, and government sponsored massacres are sure to follow.Read my blog on what our Founding Fathers said about Gun Rights. I can guarantee you, the Brady Bunch wont read them, acknowledge them or interact with them. Anyone saying such things would be “gun nuts” to them.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at ALL times armed."-Thomas Jefferson

It is Un-American not to be Armed

With all the recent talk about the need for stronger gun control and the debate as to whether American Citizens should own guns, I would like us to take a moment and review what our founding fathers believes about carrying a firearm.The second Amendment was designed to ensure all other amendments were protected against and from Tyranny both from outside and within. You can say what you want about guns and gun nuts. But you also half to use your brain and while you are at it, read what OUR founding fathers said about guns. They thought it would be UNAMERICAN for any citizen to walk around unarmed.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-George MasonCo-author of the Second Amendment

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."-Zachariah Johnson"

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable, the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."-George Washington, First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
-Thomas Paine

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."-Patrick Henry"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at ALL times armed."-Thomas Jefferson