Tag Archives: 2nd Amendment

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

Obama’s Gun Jihad

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

As gun owners know, our Muslim, Marxist President has been doing his best to take guns away from the American people. He has tried for six years to force Congress to do his bidding and violate the 2nd Amendment. To its credit Congress has pushed back, not interfering with the law abiding exercising the right given them by God and protected in the Constitution.

After San Bernardino, a city 30 miles from my homGUN CONTROL IDIOTSe and the hometown of my wife, it did not take long for Democrats to respond as they always do, by claiming: The killings were the fault of the guns and therefore, no one should have one. Yet not even a front page, Guns are Evil editorial in the New York Times could convince Americans that they should abandon the right to keep and bear arms.

Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post has decided that “Evil Republicans” are to blame for gun crime because they respect the 2nd Amendment. According to Ms. Dvorak more Gun Free Zones are the answer. Posting a sign apparently affords a guarantee of safety to those behind it; just ask any assortment of progressives GUN FREE ZONESand socialists. But maybe we should ask the children at Sandy Hook, the writers at Charlie Hebdo, or the county workers in San  Bernardino how well that works. Barack Obama, our resident scholar of constitutional law has proclaimed that these attacks take place more often in the US than in any other nation. But that isn’t the case; Norway is first, followed by Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland. Sorry, Evergreen, but your numbers lie again.

Democrats have spent decades trying to separate law abiding Americans from their guns. Just after his re-election, Obama issued 23 executive actions designed to prevent the American people from owning firearms. The National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS) is being used by the federal government to create a national database–a registry of gun owners along with the weapons they’ve purchased. Although GUN REGISTRATION 2strictly illegal, this activity has been admitted by federal officials and openly reported in the news.

Obama’s latest scheme involves an attempt to destroy gun manufacturers. Because gun sales have skyrocketed, Obama has decided to issue a vendetta against Smith and Wesson, his weapon of choice, the Securities and Exchange Commission. He is using the public advocate of the state of New York to investigate whether Smith and Wesson has made adequate disclosures in its financial statements. The public advocate, Letitia James has stated that the SEC “should investigate whether Smith and Wesson misrepresented or omitted information about how often its products are involved in crimes and what it has done to keep its product out of the hands of criminals.”

I would appreciate someone explaining to me how any company can be made responsible for the deliberate misuse of its products! Smith and Wesson does in fact provide training and a gun lock with each gun sold and no one can realistically explain what more they should do.HILLARY AND GUNS

This is, of course, nothing but a witch hunt; an attempt by this President to intimidate those who manufacture products of which he does not approve. Barack has one year remaining in which to post royal proclamations, targeting anyone not sufficiently subservient to his wishes. I wonder if Hillary appreciates The One creating even greater determination throughout the country to prevent another dedicated leftist entering the White House?

Trump will shape the issues to be “US” vs Clinton’s “THEM”

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Donald Trump is the only Republican strong enough to shape the  DONALD TRUMP 6issues of the coming campaign; this is why he will be the Republican nominee and beat Hillary Clinton.

Seventy percent of Republican voters see him as their most electable choice.

Since the Obama Administration will not indict Hillary Clinton, she will be the Democrat nominee. In the latest polls Clinton is seen as a liar and untrustworthy by 61% of voters.

The Benghazi hearings were said to do “nothing to excite   HILLARY WITCH HUNT Democrats to come to the Republican side.” Nevertheless, even the hapless Mitt Romney could have won if he was perceived as conservative by the more than 4 million self-identified conservatives who could not vote for him.

Trump’s success thus far has come from his ability to excite many of those who didn’t show up in 2012. They believed the Republicans in 2008 and 2010 but because they felt betrayed when the Republicans wouldn’t even try to fight for them; they stayed home in 2012 and 2014.

These Republican betrayals started the movement toward an “Us vs. Them” mood among conservatives. Trump will use this “movement” to his advantage and Clinton will make it easy for him.

The positions Clinton has taken and will continue to take as   HILLARY LIAR Comrade Bernie Sanders pushes her further to the left, will make it easy for Trump to sell himself as the “US” candidate and Clinton as “THEM.”

Consider Clinton’s assertion that the crisis in the Veteran’s Administration hospital system is made up by partisan Republicans. In just three days she has reversed herself in an effort to run away from her stupid comment; but Trump is strong with veterans and is the “Us” on Veterans.

In another quick flip flop, Clinton first touched the Second Amendment “third rail” by calling for an insane “national gun buyback program.” Having backtracked on the idea 3 days later,   GUN CONTROL HILLARY HYPOCRISYagain she is “THEM.” Trump is a strong supporter of gun owner rights; he’s the “US.”

Clinton has pledged to be “THEM” and support Obamacare, something 56% of Americans have hated from day one. Trump has vigorously attacked the sharp premium raises caused by Obamacare making him the “US” on Obamacare which is no small issue.

Clinton is the “THEM” on the Keystone pipeline and those with her are only 32%. Trump, joins 61% of Americans and the AFL-CIO in supporting it and is the “US.”

With the message as clear as this, Trump will win big because the TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT issues of the campaign will be the ones he selects. On every issue Trump will be US and Clinton will be THEM.

Disarming America, the Final Solution?

By John Velisek USN (Ret), staff writer

A new report touted by NBC News’ Maggie Fox makes the claim that the level of firearm ownership can be correlated with homicide deaths of Law Enforcement Officers. More civilian gun ownership in a given area, more dead police. Study authors David Sewedler and David Hemenway would later admit that perhaps this homicide rate was actually driven by criminals. The “criminal offender theory” draws the not-so-remarkable conclusion that police who have frequent encounters with violent criminals are more likely to be injured or killed. Not all that surprising a proposition, is it?

Of course, gun hating members of the media aren’t interested in the legitimacy of a study, but in the claims of its authors. In this case, more police are killed in states which have more of those evil guns. It’s short, sounds reasonable and is easy to pass off as fact. What could be better!

But why has the media decided to pick yet another nationally syndicated fight with gun owners?

On September 25th of last year, Secretary of State John Kerry-acting on behalf of the president-signed the UN’s Global Arms Trade Treaty. Though it has not been ratified by the Senate, Obama’s minions traveled to the UN ArOBAMA AND KERRYms Treaty conference in Mexico on Monday, August 24th.

It’s quite clear that the purpose of the Treaty is to disarm civilian populations—that is, people deemed unauthorized by government officials to possess firearms or ammunition. But the federal government and individual states have attempted to disarm the American people before. Connecticut and New York recently passed legislation requiring owners of “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines to register these items with the state. It has been widely reported that more than 1 million “assault weapon” owners in the two states have publicly defied the legislation and law enforcement officials, many who refuse to enforce the law anyhow.

One purpose of the UN Small Arms Treaty is to bring an end to this spirit of freedom and defiance on the part of American gun owners. As Article 16 of the Treaty explains:

“In implementing this treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include management, disarmament, demobilization, model legislation and effective practices for implementation.”

So Barack Obama might dispatch U.N. forces to quell unrest in Ferguson, for example. Once accomplished, this makeshift army of mercenaries could be directed to forcibly disarm any and all   DevilObama civilians in the area. U.N. officials would have the authority to formulate the law themselves, or go back to State Department Publication 7277, which purports to work towards the goal of the small arms treaty, “where all nations have been disarmed and merged into a system of international control within standards set by the United Nations.”

And by the way, those “standards” include the disbanding of all armed forces but those contributing to the United Nations Peace Force.   UNITED NATIONS MILITARY FORCE

Barack Obama and the radical left are hoping to use the Arms Trade Treaty to affect an end run around our inalienable, constitutionally protected right to self-defense, that is, to keep and bear arms. What couldn’t be accomplished in Congress or by the Supreme Court will now take place thanks to the authority of a treaty. And according to many, use of the Fast Track trade agreement will preclude the necessity of the Senate having to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty. Obama, or any president, will have the power to impose every article of the treaty as the law of the land.

Maybe the media has picked this fight because they figure it’ll finally be a winner.