Second Amendment at risk in Obama's Second Term

By Emily Miller

Democrats just couldn't hold it together. With less than 100 days to go before the election, the left let slip its vision of a second term for President Obama that will be the end for the Second Amendment.

They're riding on an emotional wave created by James Holmes, the suspected Aurora, Colo., movie-theater shooter who was charged with 24 counts of murder on Monday. As the courtroom proceedings in that case unfolded, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, New York Democrat, took to New York's city hall to introduce legislation making it much harder for law-abiding citizens nationwide to purchase ammunition.

The liberal duo would restrict ammunition sales to licensed dealers and require buyers to show a photo ID at the time of purchase, effectively banning people from doing their shopping online. Also, the dealer would have to maintain detailed records for each ammunition sale and report anyone purchasing over 1,000 rounds.

Second Amendment - Not Settled Law

By Madeleine Morgenstern


Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday left open the possibility that some types of guns could be regulated by the government, such as assault weapons capable of holding 100 rounds of ammunition.
“What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,“ Scalia said on ”Fox News Sunday,” referring to the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that protected the right to possess firearms.

“Some [limitations] undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time,” he continued. “There was a tort called a ”frighting” which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes there are some limitations that can be imposed, what they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”

Weapons for Peace - Not War

By John R. Lott Jr.

July 27, 2012 4:00 A.M.

‘AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities,” President Obama told the National Urban League on Wednesday. After the deadly attack in Colorado last Friday, the president’s concern is understandable. However, even ­ or perhaps especially ­ at such a time, distinctions need to be made.

The police in Aurora, Colo., reported that the killer used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is “no reason” for such “military-style weapons” to be available to civilians.

Russia - And the Second Amendment

By Moskovsky Komsomolets - Izvestia


Russia May Legalize Possession of Handguns . . .Federation Council Vice-Speaker Alexander Torshin intends to propose a bill that would allow Russians to possess handguns and use them for self-defense without fear of being exposed to criminal liability. Presumably, the bill will be proposed in the State Duma early next year.

In the meantime, the Federation Council has launched an active indoctrination effort meant to influence the public into adopting a sober-minded attitude toward the Torshin initiative. On July 24, the vice-speaker himself will deliver an expert report to legislators, senators, Public Chamber members and representatives of gun associations. The same report will be submitted to the President’s Executive Office.

The report suggests amending the Federal Law On Weapons that allows the possession of shotguns, non-lethal weapons, gas guns, stun guns, pneumatic weapons, and cold steel arms (knives), but says nothing about handguns. Proponents insist that violent crime statistics tend to decline as the number of legal firearms owners increases.

Armed People - Kill Armed People

By Jerry Ross

Armed People - Kill Armed People. . . Although it may sound like an obvious statement, it is central to the debate over the CO shooting. Key is the fact that the movie theater had a "No Firearms Allowed" policy.

No one in the theater had a weapon but the shooter.

Pro-gun advocates surmise that if a few, maybe one, theater goer had a weapon, even a handgun, they could have prevented or minimized the carnage. Even though the shooter had a bullet-proof vest a series of shots, even from a 22 caliber pistol could have given other individuals time to over power him.

Unless we place an armed officer in every public place, "No Guns" policies insures more massacres like the one in CO. 

U.N. treaty - No Right to Bear Arms

By Tribune-Review (Sunday, July 1, 2012 )
 Regardless of how it’s couched, the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) treats the constitutional guarantee of U.S. gun ownership, let alone self-defense, as a cultural failure.



But that message will be muted in the propaganda run-up to the U.N.’s conference this month to finalize ATT. Why, this is simply about the lack of “standards” on arms transfers, according to Turtle Bay. The fact that so many U.N. member states are gun-grabbing dictatorships has no bearing on any of this, right?

Supposedly the ATT “does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons,” according to the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) program. But in a paper prepared by CASA, the actual intention couldn’t be more clear:

The 2nd Amendment and Obama Care

By JW Ross


While those in favor of Obama Care celebrate its confirmation by SCOTUS and those who were against it lick their wounds, both miss the real issue raised by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling . . .which is that, for the first time in American history, Congress can tax the public not only to raise revenue but also to formulate social policy under a very broad definition of public health.

If you read the Obama Care Bill you will note that it is only partly about what we would all agree is related to health care, ie, doctors fees, coverage of the poor, previous ailments, etc. Written deep into the text are laws that enable unelected bureaucrats to regulate (by taxation) just about anything they wish without any oversight if they deem it as a health issue - anything under the categories of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is fair game, not just obvious health related products like cigarettes.