Category Archives: By The Book

Obama doesn’t want to take your guns…honest!

By Doug Book, Editor

If Americans have learned anything about the zealots who claim to seek “common sense” solutions to the non-existent epidemic of gun violence it’s that they will never be satisfied until Big Brother has stripped every law abiding gun owner of every weapon.

Last week, Coach is Right published “Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns,” an article which reveals the true intentions of 2nd Amendment foes from the late Senator John Chafee to Handgun Control Inc, prior to its transformation into the Brady Bunch. And GUN CONTROL SHEEPthe agenda of the left has not changed over the years.

During a recent appearance on Boston Public Radio (WGBH), Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans said:

“For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle and… especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern.”

Evans puts the arrogance of the left on full display as he presumes to decide what gun owners need and what, if anything, they should be permitted to have. Imagine the outcry should a conservative GUN REGISTRATION AND CONFISCATIONclaim the authority to decide whether liberals need to speak and what, if anything, they should be permitted to say! What? Treat First Amendment rights with the same degree of contempt liberals have for our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms?

Most Americans have caught on to the fabrications of our Liar in Chief as he declares his respect for the 2nd Amendment. During his campaign against John McCain, Obama said “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” Some three weeks ago, the left succumbed to a state of rapture over Obama’s shedding of crocodile tears as he announced his Executive Orders against gun ownership. Even so, few Americans were fooled when he told his audience, “I believe in the 2nd Amendment.”

Yet Obama never tires of proclaiming his appreciation for the right to keep and bear arms. Do his actions mirror his words?

During his political life, Obama:

supported legislation to “close the gun show loophole” which would have imprisoned show organizers if a single person at a show offered a gun for sale privately.   GUN CONTROL AND CHICAGO

opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have protected homeowners from weapons charges if they used an “illegal” gun in self-defense.

voted to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which would have eliminated most gun stores in America.

proposed to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which caused harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.”

supported a federal ban on concealed carry laws. As a Presidential candidate he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review “‘I am not in favor of concealed weapons,’ as ‘I think that creates a potential atmosphere wGUN CONTROL 9here more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.’”

Obama also said he believes in the “common-sense” gun laws of Australia and England, which required mass confiscation and gun bans.

Examples of Barack’s deeds not supporting his pro-2nd Amendment claims go on and on. Yet he keeps telling the same obvious lies. Does he really believe the American people are that stupid?

Sure! After all, they elected HIM twice.

“Nobody wants to take your guns”

by Doug Book,  editor

Two years ago, Coach is Right published the following piece, warning readers about the chronic dishonesty of liberals who claim to respect the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. Nothing has changed except the vigor with which Barack Hussein now attacks the 2nd Amendment, using Executive Orders because Democrats refuse to face angry voters by writing and passing unconstitutional legislation. 

There is nothing so dependably disingenuous as a liberal who proclaims a willingness to have an honest debate or engage in a legitimate compromise. It seems decades spent in the practice of calculated deceit have made truth a foreign concept to these unprincipled vermin.

And no subject has been the cause of more outright dishonesty from the left than the right to keep and bear arms.

For years, liberals have begun each new call for “common sense” gun legislation by reassuring gun owning, 2nd Amendment supporting Americans that nobody wants to take their guns. “No one is seriously proposing to ban or confiscate all guns,” claims Martin Dyckman, Associate Editor of the St. Petersburg Times.  “You hear that only from the gun lobby itself, which whistles up this bogeyman whenever some reasonable regulation is proposed.” Rather than suggest Mr. Dyckman may not be telling the absolute truth, let’s hear from the “bogeyman” himself:

“Our ultimate goal–total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.” “The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”
Richard Harris in The New Yorker, quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

“It will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have “woken up” — quote — to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.”
Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass: Speaking of the banning of firearms in the US, beginning with “the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not “household” weapons.”

“There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands.”
Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, upon signing the Communitarian Network’s “Case for Domestic Disarmament.”

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs).”
Sen. John H. Chafee (R.-R.I.): In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13A.

“Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition.”
Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993.

“There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.” “I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.”
Michael Gartner (then president of NBC News), Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?, USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992

Speaking of the Assault Weapons Ban:  “Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Charles Krauthammer (nationally syndicated columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S.  If you have a gun, you go to jail.  Only the police should have guns.”
Rosie O’Donnell. Shannon Hawkins, Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999  

“We’re talking about limiting people to one gun purchase or handgun purchase a month.  Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one?  Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles?  Nobody needs one.”
Statement by Time Magazine, National Correspondent Jack E. White
L. Brent Bozell III, Lock-and-Load Mode Against the 2nd, Washington Times, May 8, 1999

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.” 
Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns

“The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States.”
 Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000)

“We Are NOT “Gun Banners”-and never have been… Handgun Control, Inc., has never advocated banning firearms used for legitimate purposes such as hunting and recreation.”  Measures We Don’t Support,” Handgun Control Inc. March 16, 1999
As Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School points out: “Hopefully you noticed Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) doesn’t include self-defense as a “legitimate purpose” for owning a firearm.”

Apparently, as long as the Brady Campaign considers a specific firearm usage “legitimate,” gun owners have nothing to fear.   

Just remember: Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns!

On Monday, January 25th, CiR will present the wishes and threats made by gun-grabbers during the past decade. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sources:

http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html

Bernie Sanders is also a thief, even though only a piker compared to Hillary

By Doug Book, editor

After she left the White House, “Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.”
HILLARY BROKE

Of course that was petty larceny compared with the countless  millions the Clinton’s have amassed during the Pay to Play years of the Clinton Foundation. What follows is a disturbing example of theft-by-political-clout.

Between 2009 and 2013, the Russian atomic energy agency Rosatom purchased Uranium One, “…a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.” According to a New York Times article, the Canadian owners of the company had been heavy donors to the Clinton Foundation during the sale process. And why would the Chairman of Uranium One donate $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation; money which was not publicly disclosed by the Clintons “…despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors?”

According to NY Times contributors Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, the reason for the donations was obvious. They write of the Uranium One sale:

“Being a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies HILLARY ACCOMPLISHMENTSthat eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The purchase of Uranium One gave Russia control of 1/5th of the world’s uranium production. But of course, sufficient millions had been donated to the Clinton Foundation piggy bank to render the treason involved tolerable to a former President and serving Secretary of State.

As the New York Times puts it, “…the Clinton Foundation [was] headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer HILLARY BROKE 2American foreign policy as secretary of state.”

If Hillary is a first rate thief and traitor, Bernie Sanders is, by comparison, just a “poor corrupt official.”

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane O’MeaBERNIE SANDERS 3ra Sanders, “On numerous occasions steered money from organizations under their control to friends and family members, public records show.”

For example: Sanders paid his wife $90,000 for “consulting and ad placement services” during a number of his House campaigns.

In addition:

• Sanders step-daughter (his wife’s daughter) collected $65,000 for her work on Bernie’s campaigns.
• “After working for the campaign, the senator’s wife would come under scrutiny for expenditures at Burlington College, where she was hired as president in 2004. While she led the school, it paid six-figure sums to her daughter and the son of a family friend.”
• The son of a Burlington College Board member who served with Mrs. Sanders in the Burlington city govt. bought a small resort in the Bahamas. Mrs. Sanders, as President of the college, paid the BERNIE SANDERS 7young man’s resort $68,000 between 2009-2011 for the stays of College “study abroad” students. All payments from the college stopped when Mrs. Sanders resigned her position.
• During her tenure as president, Burlington College paid $500,000 to the Vermont Woodworking School. The school was operated by the Sanders’ daughter, Driscoll.
• While school president, Mrs. Sanders overstated pledged donations to the school in a loan application to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. The school purchased 33 acres from the Diocese with a $6.7 million loan from the Diocese!

BERNIE SANDERS 6
Jane O’Meara Sanders received a $200,000 parting gift from the Burlington College, probably because it was cheaper than keeping her on!

Mrs. Sanders “resigned from the college in 2011 after reaching a settlement with the Board of Trustees, which voted to negotiate an early exit package. Her future contract negotiations stalled over questions about her plans and fundraising.” Imagine that.

Bernie and Jane are apparently not possessed of the power necessary to steal the millions Bill and Hillary have gotten away with. But then Bernie is not a former president and God willing, never shall be.

Aren’t Socialists supposed to give rather than take?

Foolish Gun Owners HELP Government with Illegal Gun Registration Scheme

By Doug Book, editor

The left will do anything to abolish the private ownership of firearms. And the emphasis is on anything. After all, politicians cannot safely exercise absolute, uncontested authority over an armed public. And the majority of our nation’s ruling class–yes, Republicans included–yearn for such power; in part because it will bring an end to those annoying constitutional rights which prevent lawmakers implementing what they “know to be best,” but mostly because these self-infatuated mirror-gazers believe dictatorial authority to be their due.

The question is, how can it be accomplished? How can more than 300 million firearms be separated from an estimated 100 million owners?

With some it will be easy. When Connecticut passed into law its knee-jerk response to the 2012, Newtown murders, some 50,000 “Assault Weapon” owners dashed to the nearest police station, GUN REGISTRATION 2eager to be among the first to sign away their freedom by registering their rifles with Governor Malloy. Courageous custodians of liberty such as these will be a snap to deal with when it comes time to confiscate their-or more properly, the State’s-property.

But what of the estimated 300,000-400,000 Constitution State owners of black rifles who refuse to play toadie to a would-be monarch? How can Big Brother intimidate these or other American gun owners—for example the estimated 1 million New Yorkers who have defied the state’s Safe Act— into registering their firearms so that the coming end-game of confiscation might be facilitated? Isn’t the outright use of force likely to result in that shooting war we’ve heard so much about?

Well, not if a majority of gun owning Americans follow the example set by “Assault Weapon” owners in Maryland and Virginia.

During the 2002 killing spree by the “D.C. Snipers,” police recovered .223 caliber shell casings from the scene of one of the GUN registrationmurders. With the necessary assistance of the ATF, local and state police searched the sales records of gun stores in Maryland and Virginia, creating an inventory of those who purchased rifles which fire .223 caliber ammunition.

Information including name, address, rifle description and serial number were taken from the gun sales records (Form #4473) which the ATF demands gun store owners maintain. Police knocked on the door of every owner, asking that they be permitted to take their rifle “downtown” in order to fire it and prove the owner’s innocence!

As the AmmoLand site puts it, “With a simple ‘Please may we have your rifle…’ to prove your innocence, the police were not only given the owner’s registered sale 4473 rifle(s) but in many cases the citizens had other .223 caliber rifles that were NOT on the new purchased 4473 forms and many of these guns were also  GUN CONTROL AND OWNERSHIPvoluntarily offered up by the cooperating owners to the police. And all it took was a simple “‘please.’

“Most” of the rifles were returned. Of all the gun owners contacted by police, fewer than 3% refused to hand over their firearms. When officers decided to use a little “we’ll get a court order” intimidation, these owners said go right ahead. According to the article, no court orders were obtained. Not one.

Before you conclude that gun owners in Maryland and Virginia are just unusually stupid, cowardly or accommodating, the same thing happened in Oklahoma. When two children were shot to death with a .40 caliber pistol, area gun stores were robbed of their .40 caliber pistol sales records.

By the way, none of the expended “test” shells or bullets from these weapons were returned to gun owners. So the states—and you can bet, the federal government—have a complete record of the “fingerprints” associated with these firearms, to be used if a GUNCONTROL 6bullet or shell should turn up at a crime scene. Of course this means that countless weapons and their owners have been catalogued as part of a gun registration scheme. It is a compilation of information which is strictly illegal; just as it was illegal for police and the ATF to take part in the Maryland, Virginia and Oklahoma, Form 4473 fishing expeditions.

“We are a country of sheep. …from my cold dead hands indeed,” concludes AmmoLand.

Of course some may be confident that their government is too honorable to save this information for the purpose of confiscating firearms from the law abiding at some point in the future. These individuals probably believe that Big Brother has discarded the entire stockpile of illegally collected, gun owner/firearm “fingerprint” information.

So what of all the brave talk about a shooting war; that 2nd American Revolution, guaranteed to take place if Big Brother ever knocks on “my” door, wanting “my” gun?

It would seem that nervous SWAT team members need only say “Please” to transform free Americans into disarmed, slaves of the state.

Connecticut Supreme Court rules confiscation of firearms legal and constitutional

By Doug Book, editor

In 2013, the New York City Police Department began sending notices to certain gun owners using a “…centralized firearms registry which lists the city’s gun owners and what firearms they have in their possession.”  The notice referred to firearms prohibited under New York’s “Safe Act,” the law passed (iGUN CONTROL STUPIDITY ADVANCEDn part) in vengeful retaliation against law abiding owners of so-called “Assault Weapons” for the murders at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The gun owners were given a simple choice—surrender the now illegally held guns to the police, remove them from the city, destroy them or become a wanted felon. How did the City know where to send the letters? Simple. The recipients had revealed their identity by registering their firearms.

In Connecticut the same legislation was passed in response to the same tragedy, the only difference being lawmakers there were responsible for the murders, having declaring Sandy Hook a “Gun Free Zone.”

By the end of the mandatory registration period in the Constitution State some 50,000 owners had registered their black rifles while an estimated 300 to 400 thousand had refused. What’s to be done about intimidating those miscreants into ceding their liberty to Governor Malloy, no one in Hartford seems to know.  GUN CONTROL, CANNONS, FREEDOM

But there was some good news for Connecticut liberals when the state Supreme Court upheld the 1993 ban on “Assault Weapons.” In the unanimous decision, Chief Justice Ellen Peters wrote the following summary of the court’s viewpoint:

“As long as our citizens have available to them some types of weapons that are adequate reasonably to vindicate the right to bear arms in self-defense, the state may proscribe the possession of other weapons.” July 24th, 1995

The court has taken upon itself the dictatorial authority to determine when your constitutional rights have been sufficiently and suitably satisfied.

This is a stunningly arrogant display of contempt for the inalienable right of Connecticut residents to determine and GUN CONTROL 3provide for their own well-being.

When the time comes to confiscate these weapons-that being the obvious motive behind registration-the same words will be repeated by the court, that is, after being forcibly relieved of preferred firearms, citizens will still have available to them weapons the justices deem “adequate reasonably to vindicate the right to bear arms in self-defense.”

Should the court one day apply its reasoning to the First Amendment, it may well read:

“As Connecticut residents may communicate a range of ideas adequate to reasonably vindicate their right of Free Speech, the State may proscribe the expression of other, inappropriate sentiments.”

Works very nicely, doesn’t it.