Tag Archives: firearms

Cuomo forces “conservative” Remington out of New York; Democrats force Occidental out of California

by Kevin “Coach” Collins

This week brought two sharp reminders of what our country will increasingly look like should Democrats be given complete control of our lives. Here’s why we cannot give up the fight for our freedoms.  
Last month the Democrat Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, told a public radio host he thought, “….extreme conservatives” who are “right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay,” have “no place in the state of New York.”

Honesty like this, even on a public radio station few people actually listen to, is rare for any politician especially a Democrat.  Given the size of his audience Cuomo was likely using the opportunity to generate a few lines of red meat quotes to use in fund raiser letters. Nevertheless, what he said is how he really feels and now, Remington Arms, one of the largest gun manufacturers in New York has opted to take him at his word.

Well-placed sources are reporting that Remington, an upstate New York company that has been making America’s firearms since 1816, will be moving its expansion project to Alabama. The new Birmingham plant will employ about 2000 workers and generate $87 million in economic benefit for Alabama one of the Reddest States in America. While there are no immediate plans to close the existing New York plant, it’s not hard to image it will eventually close based on the very rapid and clear cause and effect nature of the Birmingham move. As long as Cuomo and his far Leftist Democrats run New York Remington will not be welcome and they know it.   

In California last Friday, Occidental Petroleum, a huge player in America’s energy industry, announced it was moving its corporate headquarters to Houston, a small blue stain in very red Texas. It has begun the process of consolidating all of its remaining Los Angeles based subsidiaries into a new separate company. The story in the Los Angeles Times uses lots of soothing language designed to obfuscate the truth, but in plain English Occidental said, “We’re outta here!” 

Located in Los Angeles for almost a century, Occidental could no longer abide the total all-out assault by a state government infected by rabidly anti-business and even more rabidly anti-oil lunatics. They finally forced Occidental to see the truth and move. 

There is no reason to believe these two items are not the beginning of a trend. Election Day grows nearer and Democrats, frightened of what they see coming in November, will be in a mad scramble to prove they hate America more than ever before to attract big anti-American donor money. They will attack capitalism like a pack of rabid dogs and chase still more companies toward freedom.  Watch it happen.     



Self-defense shouldn’t be practiced by the common folk

by Doug Book,  editor

“Under no circumstances should people be able to confront others in a hostile manner, end up using deadly force, and escape punishment.”  Such is the far from unconventional viewpoint of UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler. (1) But it’s not the doings of actual thugs and lawbreakers that worry the professor. His concern is about people who “take advantage” of Stand Your Ground laws; laws which according to Winkler, “unambiguously authorize people to pursue and confront others” and encourage vigilantism. (1)

Of course, the professor is not alone in spreading his deliberately false description of the contents of Stand Your Ground legislation. Three days after the George Zimmerman verdict, AG Eric Holder told members of the Orlando NAACP that “’stand your ground’” statutes can ‘undermine public safety’ and ‘victimize too many who are innocent.’” (1) They are laws which “senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.” (2) That there is no evidence Stand Your Ground legislation now in force in over 30 states actually brings about the Wild West vigilantism so feared by the Attorney General doesn’t prevent his making the claim that self-defense minded killers are everywhere poised and ready to strike.  

But why is the left so adamantly opposed to legislation which does away with the requirement to retreat first when faced with a potential threat of great harm? (By the way, most Stand Your Ground laws simply do away with the requirement to retreat. They do not grant a new “privilege” to needlessly obliterate an attacker.)

The reason is that liberals recognize the danger inherent in news of an average citizen successfully exercising his right of self defense. Allow the spread of stories in which a victim turns the tables on his attackers and suddenly people become skeptical of placing responsibility for their safety and security in the hands of a far off policeman.

And for a left which believe that only the police and other approved, government officials should have the right to carry a gun, it is especially the defensive use of firearms which causes panic. For how can liberals square as many as 2.5 million yearly uses of firearms in self-defense with their agenda of disarming the American public? (3)

The Regime’s current, focused attack against Stand Your Ground legislation should fool no one. For it’s the right of the American people to defend themselves–even with deadly force–that the left considers the real threat to their authority. In Britain, self-defense has become virtually illegal, a crime worthy of prison time. Imagine how envious the likes of Barack, Eric Holder and Chuck Schumer must be of the otherwise hated English politicos. With self-defense a punishable trespass, official members of law enforcement would become the public’s only legal means of protection. And who would be in charge of this, the only legally armed force with official authority to act in our best interest? Liberal mouths would be watering all over DC at the prospect of such power.

We’ve had to concede healthcare to Big Brother. How long will it be until successfully driving off an attacker lands us in the slam?


1.) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/16/attorney-general-holder-says-he-will-examine-state/#ixzz2ZKskTif2

2.) http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/16/holder-tells-naacp-he-will-continue-investigating-zimmerman-for-possible-federal-charges/

3.) http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-366250-guns-ice.html


Are American patriots obligated to take up arms against would-be tyrants?

by Doug Book,  staff writer

In 1833, thirty four year member of the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, wrote: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” (1)

That “palladium of liberties” has never been exercised more frequently than during the four years Barack Hussein Obama has been in the White House. According to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), “…the top 10 record gun sales days have occurred since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, and gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last four years.”  (2)

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reports that in 1944 there were approximately 192 million firearms owned by 44 million Americans. By the end of 1996, the ATF reports that “…approximately 242 million firearms were available for sale to or were possessed by civilians in the United States.”  In 2007, that number had increased to 294 million. Clearly there are now well over 300 million firearms in the hands of  American citizens, all thanks to concern that the far-left Administration is a threat to 2nd Amendment and other rights of the American people. (3)

A week ago, Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post was asked “…if Patriots have an obligation to arm themselves — to be gun owners, and be proficient at the use of arms.” He responds by saying it is “self-evident” that Liberty is an “unalienable right,” innately assured as “endowed by our creator…” That is, “it is not awarded by men or government; it is the birthright of all people.” (2)

Throughout history, countless individuals have assaulted those rights “…using the power of government to arbitrarily revoke Liberty and invoke tyranny…” In defense of that liberty, James Madison wrote in the Federalist # 46, that “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” (2)

Barack Obama has proven himself a would-be dictator in virtually every executive order and end-run around the authority of the Congress. But his ambition for unlimited presidential power can only be fully realized upon the disarming of the American public. Understanding this, millions of Americans have armed themselves in anticipation of an eventual, outright ban on gun ownership.

But as Americans, are we compelled to do more than just own firearms? Are we also obligated, as a result of our unique heritage, to USE those weapons against any force which threatens the annihilation of our rights and liberty?

Two hundred and forty years ago, approximately one third of colonists took up arms against the British, one third joined the Brits against the revolution and the rest remained neutral. After two centuries of American history and the death of countless men in battle for the preservation of the rights and liberty earned in the Revolution, the time for neutrality or for joining those who would destroy that liberty is over.

Just as millions of arms have been collected in anticipation of an Obama led assault on our God given rights, it is incumbent upon Americans to use those arms when the time comes. Those who refuse to do so will no longer be Americans, they will be the enemy.

(1) http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

(2) http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/where-will-you-personally-draw-the-line-on-protecting-the-second-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-145533

(3) http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2012/11/give-me-that-old-time-gun-control.html