I was emailed a link today that has the text of H.R. 45, which is a gun licensing bill. I have scanned the bill, but have not spent enough time with it. I thought I would post the link up here, and let you all take a look (if you haven’t yet), and then let me know what you think.
How do you think this bill will affect our rights as gun owners? Do you think it is something that could be good, or bad?
I see a few things that throw up some red flags in my mind, but I’ll let you all have first crack at it.
Here is the link: Text of H.R. 45
Things are heating up here in West Virginia as the presidential election nears. The democrats have lost the last two presidential elections because the candidates were against 2nd amendment rights. Both Gore and Kerry lost because West Virginians thought they would impede their rights to own guns. Barak Obama is not about to let that happen (or so he thinks).
There are ads that are currently running in our state that feature the president of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which claim that McCain and Obama are just alike when it comes to our guns, and therefore, we should vote for Obama because he will do more in the area of jobs, and the economy. I suppose that there are some people who will be ignorant enough to just accept this commercial at face value and decide that Obama is an ok choice for those of us who actually enjoy exercising our second amendment rights. I am not one of those ignorant few. I decided to take a look at this organization and see what they were about, and see why they are endorsing Obama rather than McCain (or some other candidate). What I discovered was that this group is not really interested in our best interests!
The American Hunters and Shooters Association is really a global warming, eco-extreme group. The website (linked above) will show you that they have one issue in mind, and they are far more focused on it than for protecting our gun rights. It is fine for them to be an organization that stands for what they believe in, but don’t hide it under the guise of standing for my 2nd amendment rights! Most of their website is focused on bashing the NRA. I am sure that we can all agree that the NRA has made mistakes, but they have certainly done more for protecting the 2nd amendment rights of Americans than any other organization. To spend so many pages bashing the NRA tells me that the American Hunters and Shooters Association is not nearly as interested in gun rights as they are for their pet project of global warming.
This group only supports those in congress and the senate (as well as presidential candidates) who will say that they think global warming is a serious, man made issue. Any candidate that believes that global warming is the result of cyclical climate changes is “against conservation.” This is evident by reading the quotes that they put on their site, as well as the ratings of the various candidates on the site. It is a ridiculous proposition that one must believe that global warming is both man made and ultimately destructive to be able to work for conservation! Many smart, educated people disagree with the leftist positions on global warming, and yet do much for conservation. I am one, and many of my friends fall into the same category! In fact, as far as animal conservation is concerned, I will take real hunters every time over the typical conservation organizations.
The assertion that Obama and McCain will protect 2nd amendment rights in the same way is blatantly dishonest. I have written an article that chronicles Barak Obama’s positions on gun rights. It shows that Obama has not been a friend of gun owners. He has done his best to outlaw semi-automatic fire arms in his home state, and I believe that he will continue to work toward this end. He had no record of being “for guns” until well into this campaign, when he needed to start winning over “rural America.” In other words, he tells people just what they want to hear. And that is exactly what this commercial does!
I guess that this group thought that putting “Hunters” and “Shooters” in their title would make those of us who are really hunters and shooters to just accept what they have to say. They obviously think that we are a stupid group, who have no ability to think for ourselves. They also must be desperate to get Obama elected. I know that many will vote for Obama because they think he is best for the country. I don’t think that is the case. Please don’t be deceived into thinking that he will be good for our 2nd amendment rights. He will certainly degrade our rights any way that he can under his umbrella of “common-sense enforcement.”
I am not a “one issue voter”, but 2nd amendment rights is on my list of “must haves” in a candidate. If Barak Obama will lie to me about what he believes on this issue, how many other issues will he lie about? This is not a matter of a “mistake”, it is not a matter of being “unclear.” He has been clear throughout his career, and that is what speaks louder to me than the words he spews now.
© Kris Brewer
Charlton Heston, well known to the general populace as a great actor who starred in a ton of movies, most notably Ben Hur and Planet of the Apes, died last night at the age of 84. According to Wikipedia, Charlton Heston made some 100 movies. You can see a short list of his popular movies, as published by the AP by clicking here. Though this is quite a career for anyone in Hollywood, it is not these accomplishments that make his passing noticeable to this writer.
Charlton Heston had a major impact on the political climate in the United States, particularly in regards to his defense of the 2nd Amendment. Charlton Heston served as the high profile president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) for five years, ending his presidency in 2003. Heston, with his popularity, was able to make conservative politics popular. He helped to develop the NRA into a major force, lobbying for gun owners in Washington D.C. He had, perhaps the greatest impact in the 2000 elections, when gun rights and the 2nd Amendment were a central issue. At the time that he stepped down from the NRA, Jeb Bush, then Governor of Florida, credited Heston for President George Bush’s election to the U.S. presidency. He said:
“Were it not for your active involvement, it’s safe to say my brother may not have been president of the United States.”
According to an article by the Associated Press, Al Gore lost the election because of this issue. Statistics show that nearly half of voters in the 2000 election were gun owners, and of them 61% voted for George Bush. Voters from households that did not own guns voted for Gore at a rate of 58% to 39% for Bush. Charlton Heston, with the power of the NRA, was able to make gun rights a main issue in that election, and they have actually changed the way Democrats now portray the issue. Al Gore was staunchly against gun rights, and ran on a strong anti-gun platform. But, the democrats learned quickly. In 2004, John Kerry put on a flannel shirt and acted like he knew what he was doing with a shotgun. That was about as realistic as Michael Dukakis poking his head out of a tank to act like he supported the troops.
In the current election cycle, the democratic candidates are following in Kerry’s footsteps because they learned that they cannot win an election without the support of the pro-gun contingent of this country. Hillary Clinton has now started claiming that her father taught her to hunt when she was growing up in Arkansas, and she “even shot a duck”. Again, that is completely disingenuous on her part. After all, Bill Clinton did a hatchet job on gun rights during his eight years in office, and we did not once hear about Hillary’s great love for hunting and the shooting sports. Barak Obama has tried to appear to be in favor of gun rights as well, touting his “belief” that guns are an integral part of our American culture, used for sporting applications as well as self defense. However, when he actually has a chance to vote on the issue, he votes in favor of restricting gun rights (such as the gun ban in Washington D.C.)
These changes in the Democratic Platform are a direct result of the work that Charlton Heston and the NRA did from 1998 on. They are truly a force to be reckoned with! Heston’s work for the 2nd Amendment endears him to gun lovers and outdoorsmen. The NRA benefited greatly from his work and his popularity. He made a great splash when he told the NRA convention in May of 2000 that the government could have his guns when they “pry it from my cold dead hands.” This has become the rallying cry for many gun rights advocates, and has shown up on countless bumper stickers.
I for one am glad that there are those that will fight so hard for our rights to keep and bear arms.
I know I have been writing quite a bit on here lately about Barak Obama. But, the truth of the matter is, he has put himself forward as the candidate of honesty and integrity, and he is anything but that in real life. If you are a Barak Obama supporter, I don’t mean to offend you. I write these things so that may be you will be able to see that he isn’t really all he cracks himself up to be.
Obama has been trying to act as if he is for the 2nd Amendment, and the right for Americans to keep and bear arms. In fact, while campaigning in the Midwest (predominantly “red state” regions), he has included much about how he is for the rights of the people to keep weapons for sporting applications and for self protection (and protection of family). However, he has been for the handgun ban in Washington D.C., which means that he doesn’t want those people to have the right to protect themselves, or own guns for sporting purposes. He also tried to get most guns banned in Chicago. So, I guess he is for your right to keep and bear arms, except when he decides you live in a place that he doesn’t want you to have them!
Recently, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review published a piece about the various candidates positions on the 2nd Amendment, and issues that surround it. Obama has backed off of his attempts to push for a wide spread registration of guns (which is what he wanted to do in Illinois), probably because it is so unpopular among the American people, and could be his death knell. He has, however declared that he is against concealed carry. Now, most states already have conceal carry laws on the books. Would he push for legislation to repeal those laws by a national law (which could supersede the state laws)?
Alan Gottlieb, the Chairman for The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), has put his finger on the main point of this issue. In an article published on Townhall.com, he said:
“Barack Obama ignorantly believes that legally-armed Americans are as reckless and irresponsible as the criminals with whom his political sympathies evidently law (sic).”
He went on to say:
“He has been insisting for months he supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but here he is now campaigning in Pennsylvania, stating essentially he would prefers Americans not exercise that right.”
The sad truth is that we are seeing the two faces of Barak Obama. He is for guns when he is in a crowd that wants him to be for guns. He is against guns when he is in a crowd that wants him to be against guns. But, how will he legislate? What is his position when he is in his office all by himself? I think that is pretty evident. He is against guns, and will do what he can to make it as difficult as he can to attain guns legally. His track record in Illinois is enough to show what he will do if he makes it to the “big show”.
If you still think that Barak Obama will protect your rights to keep your guns (and buy new ones), then you better wake up! Bill Clinton was the worst president we have every had as it applies to this issue. Hillary would be in th same vein. Al Gore was defeated, primarily on this issue. But, Barak Obama is probably worse than all of them! He doesn’t want you to be able to buy a gun, or own a gun. Are you willing to accept that?
The Oklahoma Senate has had a proposition before them to allow certain students to carry concealed weapons on the campuses of Oklahoma Universities. Specifically, the proposition called for permitting military veterans, and others with specific gun training, to be allowed to carry weapons on campus. The idea was that these well trained individuals could be of great help if and when a tragedy like that at Virginia Tech should happen.
Unfortunately, the proposition will not even be considered this term because the leading Republican, and Democrat could not agree to hear the bill. Basically, it seems to me, that there was too much controversy surrounding the bill, and so the leadership wimped out of addressing the issue. I’ll give you one guess which side PROBABLY stalled the consideration of the bill!
What is sickening to me is the way that the press taints the issue. My source for this is an AP Article, which quotes people who would make gun-toters look like complete idiots. Consider, for example, what the article records as a quote from the president of the University of Oklahoma:
“University of Oklahoma President David Boren had argued the bill would hurt recruitment of students and faculty. It also would pose a dilemma for police trying to determine whether a person wielding a weapon was a “deranged gunman or someone who thinks he is doing good vigilante work.””
That certainly calls into question the ability of our veterans to handle a gun differently than a “deranged gunman”! I guess they are trained well enough to handle guns when they are being shot at by enemy forces, but not trained well enough to handle themselves calmly and effectively in the case of a campus shooting. Or, perhaps it is the policemen that should feel slighted here. After all, this university president says that they aren’t smart enough to figure out who the bad guys are. What this comes down to is that many people in this country do not believe that we really have the right to defend ourselves. Or, at least there are places that we don’t have that right.
The Senator responsible for introducing this bill, Jason Murphey (a Republican), is also sited in the article:
Rep. Jason Murphey, a Republican, had introduced the campus gun bill. He said college officials used fear tactics against his measure, and he disputed their claim that it would have increased security problems.
Murphey and others argued that properly trained people with concealed handguns could avert deadly episodes like one last year that left 33 dead, counting the shooter, at Virginia Tech.
“If we can’t trust our veterans, who can we trust?” he asked.
That final question is a good one. Why are we afraid to let people who are trained in combat carry a gun to help protect themselves and their fellow students? The claim is that there will be more violence. But, that is unsubstantiated on every level! Just think about it. If there had been just one person with a legal gun in the first classroom attacked at Virginia Tech, how many lives may have been saved? Carry that thought on to all the school shootings and other attacks we hear of in the news. Most of them take place in locations where firearms (in the hands of law abiding citizens) are banned. The truth is, cowards go where they know they won’t be shot at.
It is time to start considering legislation like this bill in Oklahoma. It is time for people to be able to defend themselves, as the Constitution gives them the right to do. But, this isn’t going to happen until one party in our governmental system admits that we as individuals are better equipped to care for ourselves, than to rely on the government!
Just my 2 cents worth…
EDIT: I can’t believe that I forgot that today was Tuesday, and I neglected the Tuesday’s Tracking. Be sure to check back next week for a new update in that category…if I don’t forget it again!
I don’t really want to turn this blog into a political board, but at the same time, I see some things coming in this election that will have a great impact on us as outdoorsmen. I am surprised to see how much support Barak Obama has been raising. However, as an outdoorsman, his policies on gun control, and the 2nd Amendment scare me! I did some research into it a few days ago, and ended up writing an article on it.
If you have time, read this article on Barack Obama’s Gun Control Positions. We were up in arms 8 years ago because of the liberal gun control policies of Al Gore, and then 4 years ago because of the policies of John Kerry. From what I can tell, Obama will be just as liberal, and just as militant against our right to have guns. He has already tried to take away all semi-automatic firearms…there goes your Benelli from the gun cabinet!
There are a lot of other policies that I disagree with Barack Obama on, but I will save them for another place and time. This issue, however, is both close to my heart, and relevant to this readership. I encourage you all to check out what he believes on this issue before choosing to cast a vote for him!
It is time for us to band together. There is a threat out there that we must be willing to face. This will not be politically correct, but it must be done. We cannot let the danger continue. We must deal with it…for the kids. There is a weapon out there that has the potential of destroying our children. The really bad thing is that there is little, or no state or federal regulations dealing with this dangerous weapon. There are no registrations. There are no conceal carry permits. There is nothing to control the purchase, use, transfer, or disposal of this weapon. This is unconscionable!
Recently, this weapon was used in a classroom here in West Virginia, on a teacher. Thankfully, she was not killed by the weapon, but she was seriously injured, causing her to spend several days in the hospital.
In another story, this weapon was used by a prostitute on a man who would not pay her for her “services”.
In yet another recent story, this weapon was used by three men to kill another man.
I am sure the list could go on and on. If I were to expand the area of my search, I am sure the number of examples that I could list would be astronomical. This weapon is a danger to all that come near it. It, by its very nature, must be dangerous to the owner, and to any children in the owner’s home. Surely, we should legislate drawer locks, or that safes must be used to store such dangerous weapons in the home.
I am sure that the regular readers of this blog recognize the “tongue in cheek” nature of the first part of this blog. But, as I sat and watched the news tonight, this point became crystal clear. Why are there not people lined up, protesting the school that let a mad man in to attack a teacher? Why are there no “anti-knife” proponents out demanding that there be more legislation. If this man had used a gun, the story would be getting national exposure. There would be demands that we have tighten up gun laws, and try to register everyone who has a gun, as well as every gun they own. Not true? What happened immediately following the shooting at Virginia Tech? Columbine, CO? Paducha, KY?
The truth is, if someone tried to make the same kinds of laws for knives, as they try to make for guns they would be laughed off the news. They know that their calls to action are ludicrous, but they are so prejudiced against guns, and gun owners that they throw common sense to the wind, and call for legislation aimed at eventually banning all firearms.
I am not trying to make light of these news stories, so please don’t misunderstand my point. Yes, these are terrible crimes, and the perpetrators must be punished to the fullness of the law (if they are still living). But, why is a crime with a gun more egregious than a crime with a knife? Is a life taken with a gun more important than a life taken with a knife? The solution is not to inflict more regulations and restrictions on knives. It is to realize that there are laws that are already in place for guns, and if the laws are enforced, then criminals will be punished. How is making more gun laws going to cut down on gun crime? Think this through with me…the criminal is already breaking laws to use a gun in the commission of a crime. Already breaking the law…. Already breaking the law… Ok, thought I would repeat that a few times, just in case an irrational anti-gun person stumbles in here. It takes a bit longer for rational thought to sink in with them.
If it is just about the safety, then we had better start organizing so that we can get these dangerous knives off of the streets. For the sake of the kids!
OK everyone, if you have not done so yet, you have got to read this post by Tom over at the Black Bear Blog. As I said a couple of days ago, I have been away from the computer for a while, but as I was scanning a few blogs tonight, I came across Tom’s post. He is spot on when it comes to what the Brady Report Card means to 2nd Amendment Rights. But, don’t just read the post, make sure and read the discussion that followed. Tom has done a great job of discussing the subject with a person who is obviously against 2nd Amendment rights. He is using the “what does it hurt” argument…which we all know means that they will never get enough! My kids have a book called If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, for which the premise is that if you give one thing, he’s gonna want something else. Well, if we give them “assault rifles” then they will want all “semi autos”, after which they will want all pistols, then all repeating arms, and finally all of our firearms. We cannot give in on any level!
Keep up the good work over there Tom! I am so excited to see so many outdoorsmen and women taking up the fight against those who would take away rights that have been given to us by our forefathers!
I received the following in an email in response to my blog post from a couple of days ago. I thought it was funny, so I thought I would pass it on.
Doctors vs. Gun owners :
(A) The number of physicians in the
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year: 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician per year: 0.171. (17%)
Statistics courtesy of
Now think about this:
(A) The number of gun owners in the
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups: 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner: .000188. (.0188%)
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,
BUT ALMOST 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!!!!!
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!
Well, no surprise, but Chuck Schumer once again is trying to whittle away our 2nd amendment rights. He has tried to push through a bill that would make it impossible for veterans who have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome to ever buy a gun. That’s right…you can have one to kill the enemy, but come on home, and you don’t ever get to buy one. And, there was no provision in Schumer’s bill to allow for such a person to get better, and therefore be allowed to purchase a weapon later. They would be just like a felon…once diagnosed with any questionable mental defect, you would have no opportunity to buy a weapon. I, like any one else, am all for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally instable, but this bill was about taking away rights from people who did not deserve to have them taken away. Oh, let me fill you in on the rest of the story…Chuck also wanted to take the ability to purchase a gun from anyone who was ever diagnosed with ADHD…how many of you would that take out of the market for a new Glock? And, if grandpa was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, or dementia, the guns could be taken away by the government…that’s right, the government! Not the kids (you know, like in a free society).
This is where Senator Tom Coburn, Republican from Oklahoma, comes into the picture. Schumer was trying to push his legislation to the floor of the senate without amendment, by way of a unanimous consent agreement. That is, if there was no objection, then the bill would move from the judiciary committee straight to the floor, without being altered. Fortunately for those of us who love our guns, Senator Coburn objected, thus killing the unanimous consent agreement. Now, it will be possible to amend the bill, and hopefully some of the senators that have claimed to be for the 2nd amendment will step up to the plate and see to it that it does not make it through in its current form.
I have read much lately about how we need more gun laws…after all, if there were more gun laws, then tragedies like that at Virginia Tech would never happen. Uh….no. Think about it. How many gun laws, on the books, were broken by the VT gunman (and others like him). More gun laws will not stop violence like that. They are criminals, breaking the law…if we make more laws, that just gives them more laws to break. More gun laws do nothing but restrict the rights of us law abiding citizens. Do you know that the rights of people who have a carry permit are stripped away every day in places like Virginia Tech (and most other University campuses). They are not permitted to exercise their right to carry the weapon that they are licensed to carry. If that right had not been taken away, perhaps the violence on the VT campus, and in other places like it, would not have been so severe.
Finally, I will close with an idea that I saw in an article online today. Why is it that so many people will defend the first amendment with everything they can muster, but the second amendment is simply ignored? The most obscene of art, writing, speech, etc. is defended under the blanket of the first amendment. But, the same people will do all they can to get rid of the second amendment, because they don’t think there is any good reason for a firearm. I am all for the first amendment, and I am glad for freedom of speech (even though that produces many things I do not like, or approve of). But I also support the second amendment, even though some may abuse it, and do things that I do not like, or approve of!