“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” (SOURCE)

At Hotair.com there is more. Here is a snippet from the Washington Post Lifestyle profile:

“On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” (SOURCE)

It should come as no surprise to anyone that President Obama would seek to impose gun control regulations on American citizens using the regulatory agencies at his command and by-passing the Congress, altogether. Obama rules as a potentate rather than a President of a constitutional republic.

Come on, folks. Everyone should understand this simple fact: There is no way the political left can get their agenda imposed on America — without first disarming America.

In an article at the Huffington Post entitled:  “Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy” the following is reported: “Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.” (SOURCE)

The HuffPo goes on to say: “For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising — albeit more limited — vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law.

The discussions were meant to build a broad coalition around the elements of reform Obama had outlined a day earlier in an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, including stronger state-to-state coordination, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books, especially with regard to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” (SOURCE)

From an article by John Lott at foxnew.com/opinion comes this: “Indeed, Obama has been a consistent opponent of gun ownership. He enacted a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns because, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents.” He has proposed much more extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns. Obama’s nomination of anti-gun Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives threatens imposing many new regulations. Still further, the Obama administration has actively pushed for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty and continues to make inaccurate statements about the source of Mexico’s crime guns.” (SOURCE)

As if you needed to be reminded, we have an election coming up in November of 2012. As one of the Americans described by Obama in his last campaign for President as “… bitter Americans who cling to their guns and cling to their religion…”. I am going to remember all this next year, come time to cast my ballot. I hope you do, too.

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at “INSIGHT on Freedom” at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

And at: “ Longstreet’s Commentaries” at:

http://www.swampfox1776.blog.com/

E-Mail: longstreet1862@gmail.com

 

WesternFront America

One of the reasons newspaper circulation and TV news ratings are falling is because people no longer trust journalists. They are tired of being mislead as reporters select and distort news coverage to conform to the media’s ideology.

Monday produced two prime examples and both involved slanted opinion surveys.

The first was headlined: “Gap seen between public, General Assembly on recent stances.” The story showcased a Christopher Newport University survey that claimed eight out of ten Virginians supported a new law that would require background checks for all firearms purchasers at gun shows, including those who purchase from private individuals.

The reporter, Jim Nolan, predicts an obstinate Virginia General Assembly will ignore “the public’s strong preferences.” What Nolan doesn’t say is the survey was dishonest and specifically designed to produce an answer supporting additional regulation.

The question read: “Under Virginia law, in order for an individual to be able to purchase a firearm at a gun show from a licensed firearms dealer, that individual must first pass a criminal background check. However, that same individual could purchase a firearm at that same gun show from an unlicensed seller without first having to pass a criminal background check. This is known as the GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE. Do you support changing the law to close this loophole so that anyone purchasing a firearm at a gun show has to pass a criminal background check first or should the law remain as it is?”

There are two methodology problems that distort the results. The term “unlicensed seller” implies someone is skirting the law and gives a negative connotation to the listener. Second, using the pejorative term “GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE” is simply malpractice. Repeating the term “loophole” doubles the dishonesty. The technical term for this, aside from lying, is tainting the sample.

An honest poll uses neutral language. A biased, pro–gun control poll uses loaded language to influence results.

I’m surprised only 80 percent wanted to change the law, maybe a few lobbyists slipped into the sample. American’s don’t like “loopholes” that slippery people use to get by with something.

The only loophole a vast majority of the public would not support eliminating is one that allowed adultery; and even then women would be for elimination.

If the sponsors of the survey — CNU, The Virginian–Pilot and WVEC–TV — had been interested in accuracy, the question would have been:

“Under Virginia law, to purchase a firearm at a gun show from a licensed firearms dealer an individual must first pass a criminal background check. However, that same individual is allowed purchase a firearm at that same gun show from a private citizen without first passing a criminal background check. Do you support changing the law so that a person who makes an private sale at a gun show is required to conduct a criminal background check before he can sell the firearm to another individual or should the law remain as it is?”

This answer would truly reflect public opinion, because the wording accurately and neutrally describes the existing situation. The CNU poll does neither.

If a Republican candidate conducts a poll with questionable wording, he’s blasted for conducting a “push poll.” When the media does it, the poll is a public service.

Example two concerns Obamacare. This story claims strong opposition is at the lowest level since September 2009, once again based on biased questioning: “In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reforms that were passed by Congress in March?”
The misleading term is “reforms.” “Reforms” implies something was wrong with the status quo and the law corrected the situation.

Interestingly, the word “reform” does not appear in the Associated Press story, evidently because the term served its purpose in the questionnaire. Yet, even after cooking the books, AP still couldn’t get the desired outcome, so the reporter simply distorts the results.

He doesn’t tell you “strong opposition” levels are three times that of merely “oppose.” Which is the reverse of most polling, where general support or opposition is usually far higher than intense feelings.
Even more damning is that “strongly support” Obamacare is 21 percent, while “somewhat support” is 19 percent, almost a one–to–one ratio.

Successful political consultants know the side with the intense support is the side that wins and opposition to Obama’s “reform” remains far more intense, regardless of temporary polling fluctuations.
Recently the Richmond Times–Dispatch and PolitiFact.com have partnered to produce the “Virginia Truth–O–Meter” where august journalists evaluate the veracity of statements made by politicians after they filter the facts through their own ideological prism. The scale on the meter ranges from true to “pants–on–fire.”

My suggestion for the partnership would be to perform a real public service and broaden its focus to include another category of dangerous fantasists: liberal political reporters.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He can be reached at michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www2.insidenova.com/topics/types/person/tags/michael-r-shannon/

 

WesternFront America

We haven’t heard much about gun control lately here in America, and I am beginning to believe that is by design. The Obama Administration is hoping for Senate ratification of the treaty, which would, almost certainly, gut the 2^nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

The fact of the matter is this: The UN Small Arms Treaty amounts to global gun control.

In a letter from Congressman Paul Broun, Republican of Georgia, posted at the website of the National Association for Gun Owners Rights (HERE) the congressman says the following:

“With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

If passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

• Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
• CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
• BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
• Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

The citizen “unrest” in America today may make the ratification by the US Senate of this “treaty” seem far more palatable and even desirous by those in power in the American government today. And that is why we bring this warning to you today. We must keep a wary eye on the goings-on in the national legislature.

In July of 2009, we issued a warning concerning the unceasing work of “gungrabbers” in America. In that article we said the following: “So America edges ever closer to losing the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, quite possibly even the right to carry a knife. There can be no doubt that a knife, in the time of our forefathers, was, indeed, a weapon. It would, no doubt, fall into the category of “arms.” There can also be no doubt as to why the forefathers felt it important to place this amendment (the second amendment) in the constitution as a part of the original 10 amendments that made up the Bill of Rights. They had just fought a war against a tyrant to gain their freedom – and they did it with a citizen’s army composed of men who owned their own weapons!

George Washington, the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army and the first President of the United States said the following: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Thomas Jefferson said the following: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

And finally, words from the most well known of the tyrants of the last century, Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

It is good, I think, to note that The Forefathers felt so highly of the right to keep and bear arms that it is the SECOND Amendment. The first being, of course, freedom of speech, religion, etc.

We must tread softly, yet boldly, as we attempt to protect our rights these days. America has two generations of citizens trained in socialism as products of the Public (Government) School System. Like “Pavlov’s Dog” they await only the ringing of the bell to respond in defense of the “greater good.” But, like the other dog, chasing it’s tail, they haven’t the reasoning ability to ask of themselves what they intend to do with the tail if, and when, they DO catch it?” (You may read the entire article (HERE).

“The price of freedom is, indeed, eternal vigilance.” The Democratic Party has demonstrated over the past 4 years their utter contempt for the concerns and wishes of the American citizen. As they continue to hold the reins of power throughout this lame duck session of the Congress and will maintain control of the Senate after January first of 2011, we cannot drop our guard, or divert our attention for one moment. If there is a way, anyway, (as we have learned the hard way) the democrats will try to sneak ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty through the Senate with no regard for the opposition of American gun owners nor for those who insist the US Constitution still reigns supreme in America — and not the UN.

As long as the Obama Regime remains in power along with the liberal-socialists politicians that are, unfortunately, the Democratic Party these days, the constitutional rights of all Americans are in peril.

We conservatives must work harder than ever as we continue our endeavor to rid our nation’s leadership of those who support the United Nations and their goal of establishing a one world government, or global government, under THEIR control.

We must not allow the UN Small Arms Treaty to be rarified by the US Senate… period!

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

 

WesternFront America

Text of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What part of “SHALL NOT” do the gun control advocates NOT UNDERSTAND?

This time, the US Supreme Court has been asked to decide if the states have the right to take your guns away. We’re talking about the state governments – not the federal government.

The “gun grabbers” have not given up. Oh, no! They are “true believers,” choosing to believe in the myth and the fairy tale that if you take people’s guns away America will be a safer place. They believe this in spite of the facts out there for everyone to see.

See, those stubborn facts tell a different story. Those facts tell us that when you mandate by law that citizens must give up their guns, law-abiding citizens will do it. They won’t like it. They will grumble and fuss, but in the end — they will give them up. On the other hand the citizens who do not abide by the law will not give up their guns and, as a result, a huge power shift occurs. Power is snatched from the hands of the law-abiding citizens and given to the government and the outlaws…. but I repeat myself. Next comes anarchy.

I’ll make a prediction here. If the time ever comes in America when the government, state or federal, forces the citizens to give up their guns and the bad guys begin their reign of fear, a cottage industry will spring up all across the land. It will be an industry turning out homemade firearms. Soon that will turn into a full-fledged black market where underground illicit firearms factories will be created to meet the demand from citizens seeking protection for their homes and their families.

There is something very important the elite in this country, apparently, do not know. That is — just how easy it is to produce a firearm. Even “yours truly” produced homemade firearms while still a student in high school. I even had a single shot 22 caliber “zip gun” (made by me) sewn inside the sleeve of my black horsehide leather jacket! No Joke! I was serious then — and I am serious now.

A fellow student produced a handgun so powerful it blew a nice fat, round, hole through the side of his father’s barn. And we were KIDS! How sophisticated do you think a couple of high school kids were about the intricacies of producing firearms?

The point is — just like prohibition, a ban on firearms in the United States will back fire and it will create more problems than ever expected by the gungrabbers and/or the government whether that government is state or federal. And mark this: neither a state government nor the federal government will be able to handle it.

Let us say, hypothetically, of course, that a state government decides to ban guns within that state. How long do you think it will be before thriving gun smuggling operations are set up to meet the demand for guns in that “gun-free” state? I’d give it hours. Maybe the leaders of the gungrabbers have not thought about this – but you can bet the ATF has!

Understand this. Banning guns in the United States is impossible. It cannot be done, except on paper. The citizens of this country will be armed.

The Supreme Court will, more than likely, hand down their decision before June of this year. The American citizens have already made their decision. They WILL have guns – one way — or the other.

© J. D. Longstreet

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

 

WesternFront America

… OBAMA LEADS THE UN GUNGRABBER PACK.

Back in October of 2009, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, publicly announced that the US WOULD support UN negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking. The Bush administration, you may remember, and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations, John Bolton, opposed negotiations of this treaty for years.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has said: “Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms. The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area.”

The US then joined a vote, which was almost unanimous; to adopt a resolution, which would set a schedule, a timetable, on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty. Within that resolution was a proposal to finalize the accord in the year 2012.

Gun Owners in the US are gravely concerned over this move by the UN – and — more importantly, by the Obama Regime, to support it. To many gun enthusiasts it is a dangerous submission of America’s Constitution to “Global Governance” — and there is a growing belief that it is an attempt by the Obama Regime to create private gun control laws it knows it cannot get through the US Congress. It doesn’t take any imagination, at all, to quickly understand that this treaty would effectively cancel rights granted US citizens by the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. Our right to “keep and bear arms” would no longer exist.

US gun rights supporters are up in arms – and with good reason. John Bolton, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations, fought the proposed treaty for quite a while. He has seen it up close and personally.

Bolton, in remarks he made recently to Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Associations’ NRA News and host of the NRA’s Daily News program, said the following: “The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Bolton continued: “There’s never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what’s legal and what’s not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there’s no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.”

Bolton went on to say: “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” he said. “The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

It turns out there are some seven countries pushing the UN Arms Treaty, Great Britain, Australia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, and Kenya.

Interestingly, Great Britain has had a virtual explosion of violent crime since they all but banned guns back in 1997. Just a few months ago, the British press reported that England and Wales now have the highest violent crime in the European Union – a rate which, in fact, exceeds that of the United States and even hyper-violent South Africa. Mailonline reported: “In the decade following [the election of the Labor Party] in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 percent to 1.158 million – more than two every minute.”

It seems that Great Britain, with their near ban of gun ownership by private citizens, has a violent crime victimization rate of 2,034 per 100,000 residents. While here, in the, oh, so violent USA, with our far less restrictive gun laws, we have a violence rate of only 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. Even South Africa’s rate is lower, at 1,677 violent crimes per 100,000. You can read an exceptional article on this subject HERE.

In the land “down under,” Australia, the Aussies are suffering an escalation in violent crimes as well. The Australia Institute of Criminology reports that assault alone occurs at a rate of 840 per 100,000 – a rate that increased dramatically since the Port Arthur ban.

You might find it interesting what the Aussies have to put up with now that firearms are nearly banned in their fair land. It is, indeed, a warning for their cousins, the Americans. “The Manly Daily” reported, back in October of 2009, that pursuant to the Australian Firearms Act of 1996: “Northern Beaches Police will be turning up on the doorstep of every licensed gun owner in the area over the next four years to check their firearms are stored correctly.

Operation Aston follows the gun amnesty that ended on May 31 and will target guns stored incorrectly and the security of gun safes, Northern Beaches Commander Doreen Cruickshank said.

“Gun owners have a responsibility to ensure their weapon is safely stored at all times when not in use,” Supt Cruickshank said.

“Licensing police will be attending the home of every licensed firearm owner in the northern beaches over the next four years to inspect every weapon and check the gun safe.

“Officers will be examining all gun safes to ensure they comply with the legislative requirements, particularly in relation to the standard and security of safes.”

Supt Cruickshank reminded all legitimate owners that under the Firearms Act they must take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safekeeping of their firearms.

“It’s especially important that weapons are stored in such a way as to limit the possibility of loss or theft, so they don’t come into the possession of a person who isn’t authorized to hold them,” she said.

The maximum penalty for incorrect storage of a weapon is two years in jail. You may read the article HERE.

You might be interested in this, as well: In Australia, for every firearm, a purchaser must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit for each person has a mandatory 28 day delay before it is issued. In some states, such as Queensland, this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class, whilst in others, it is not. For each firearm a “Genuine Reason” must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license.

THIS is where America is headed if the “gungrabbers” get their “reasonable gun control” laws. They know they cannot get those laws passed through Congress but they have an excellent chance to get them through the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

*********************************************************

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at:

http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

longstreet1862@gmail.com

Join Christians Against Leftist Heresy

_____________________________

Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://csadispatch.blogspot.com/. Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America