Extremist Caitlin Halligan Withdraws from Court Nomination

 

Republicans scored a big victory over Barack Obama and his extremist, anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment nomination to the federal appeals court: Caitlin Halligan.

Republicans said the ultra-liberal and radical Halligan was an activist judge who flaunted the law by working to undermine American laws in regard to illegal immigrants, as well as worked against the legal manufacturing of guns in America.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell pointed out extreme actions Halligan took when solicitor general for the state of New York. He said in one specific case she attempted to make it legal for the National Labor Relations Board to grant back pay to illegal aliens.

Halligan also said concerning gun manufacturers that they were a big part of the problem of illegal guns in the state of New York. Radical and out-of-touch ideas like this are what stalled her upward move, and she has no one to blame but herself for her outrageous positions.

Considered the second most important court in the land, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considered a step from being nominated to the Supreme Court, so there has been an increasing scrutiny over who is nominated.

This is a good sign from the Republicans, who have caved on numerous issues that they didn't need to, as they wrongly interpreted the political winds, which afterwards would have proven to be considered a positive move by the party. As an example, look at the media manipulation and Obama's screed on the effects sequestration would have on the country. Few people even remember it now, and it was never a big deal to the American people.

Republicans need to realize they're on the right side of a lot of issues, and the should have the guts to see many things through till the end.

The Second Amendment and the right to bear arms is one of them. They'll find if they hold steady, once the legislation is rejected, the majority of people in the United States won't care at all, and will consider their stand a principled and courageous one.

Hopefully the blocking of a vote for Halligan resulting in her withdrawing her name for consideration is a step in the right direction for the GOP.

Inclusion of Expanded Background Checks in Debates Called Victory

Only a bizarre media outlet like Bloomberg could call the inclusion of an expansion of federal background checks in proposed legislation to be debated a victory.

Think of it. Including something in bill to be debated is somehow considered a victory for opponents of Second Amendment rights. What a strange assertion; one that isn't even intellectually cohesive.

It shows the failure of Democrats and liberals in the attempt to trash the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. If a victory is allowing something to be debated, it is already a defeat.

This is why Harry Reid is calling it a victory for proponents of restricting the use of guns in America. He's attempting to save face for the misguided and delusional Democratic Party, which was warned by former President Bill Clinton they shouldn't attempt to take on Americans concerning guns. It's part of our lives, and no one is going to take away our freedom to own guns for protection, hunting, and recreational use.

The silly Bloomberg article is so blinded by their hatred of the Second Amendment that it Alan Fram to even assert this as being "an aggressive approach" by the Democrats. Does he disrespect his readers so much that he would make such an ignorant comment?

Reid continued to ram the idea down American throats that he has the upper hand, saying this: "I want to be clear: In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks." Let me make it clear Harold: there will be no bill passed then. Who cares?

What all this says is Reid and the Democrats are running scared. They know they've bitten off more than they can chew, and are starting to see this will be a deal-changer in the next election.

The reason I say that is the endless changes to the legislation which gives the appearance the Democrats are moving forward, when in fact they're being pushed backwards, as evidenced by the removal of a ban on automatic rifles championed by the clueless Dianne Feinstein, who is still licking her wounds over her very public defeat.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa sees this, "I don't know how the leader expects members to vote on an ever-changing piece of legislation that has yet to gain bipartisan support."

Again, all the changes are attempts of Democrats to make it look like they're battling, when in effect they're really in an organized retreat that they are fighting to keep from being viewed as the route it in fact is.

The public doesn't buy the nonsense proffered by liberals that guns are what kill people. Everyone knows it's people that kill people, whether it's using a gun, fists, knives, or other potential weapon.

In the end, the best policy is to have trained people in public situations that are licensed to pack and protect those under their care. That is the only answer to a world that includes evil.
Criminals and crazies will always have access to guns and other potential weapons, so criminalizing or banning the use of firearms only takes away the freedoms and liberties of law-abiding citizens. We aren't going to let that happen.

Proposed Assault Weapons Ban Dropped in Defeat

In another blow to anti-Second Amendment politicians, Harry Reid let extremist Dianne Feinstein know that her bill to ban assault weapons was being dropped from existing legislation. In the best-case-scenario the bill only had 40 supporters.

All this was was a giant waste of time apparently initiated for political theater which the liberal, mainstream media ate up. It was never going to happen. Period!

Feinstein is even trying to recoup some dignity after being publicly trounced by the electorate, which overwhelmingly oppose the liberal from California.

Even the media watching it die attempt to offer support to Feinstein, saying it could come up for a vote later. Who cares? It's dead. It's going to be voted down and trounced again if it is brought up.

The disingenuous Reid read the handwriting on the wall and knew the moderate Democrats being pressured to vote for the legislation would get hammered in the next election, which could result in a huge shift in power for the Republicans.

This happened with Obamacare, and will no doubt happen again if these draconian attempts at taking away the right of Americans to bear arms is passed.

The pathetic Feinstein is living in the ultimate state of denial by again blaming the NRA for all of this. It sounds like Hillary Clinton when talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Liberal nuts like these can't see that it's the American people that oppose all of this, not special interest groups that exist as a representative of that opposition. If there were no NRA there would still be just as much opposition to gun control as there is now.

While this is one victory we have to be careful, as this, in my estimation, has always been a set up to get other legislation passed which now appears to be less intrusive to Second Amendment advocates.

What is being proposed now is to combine the other bills together in order to put pressure on conservatives and moderate Democrats to vote for it. Unless they're totally blinded to the immense support they have, they would have to be politically suicidal to sign on to any of these ridiculous bills.

Just a little while ago sequestration was being presented as a disaster for Republicans. No one even cares about it in the aftermath, and things are going along just fine now.

Not only will that be the same with guns, but it will be even more beneficial for Republicans and conservatives going forward.

Democrat Senators Feeling Pro-Gun Heat

Whether you like former president Bill Clinton or not, he is as politically astute as a person can get, and when he saw the Democrats move towards gun control, he warned the party they shouldn't take that route. They didn't listen. It would cost them the Senate in 2014 if Democrat senators in gun rights states are pressured and cave.

The problem for the Democrats is they have gone all in on this, as the liberal media quickly and ferociously joined the cause, with the usual lack of understanding and interest in the millions of Americans whom don't line up with their ideology, and the media don't understand or care about.

That has raised the stakes for Democrats in states with a majority which resist the gun control efforts of the national Democrats, who are rightly perceived as being out of touch with them.

Vulnerable Democratic senators include Max Baucus of Montana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska and Tim Johnson of South Dakota.

The big question lingering in the minds of many people is the career sacrifices forced on Democrats in the Obamacare fiasco, where those refusing to represent the states they were supposed to either refused to run because they were going to get slaughtered by their opponents, or they ran and got voted out.

Will the national, Obama Democrats force this upon there fellow Democrats again, even though it would no doubt cost them the Senate? That seems to be the real question people are waiting to have answered.

These Democrats especially, and others as well, know they don't have the luxury of being coy over time, as these decisions are being forced upon them now, not after the next elections.

For national, liberal Democrats, they will view them as traitors because they don't care at all about them or the people they serve. They are driven by ideology, and the people in mid-America, the south, and parts of the west know this.

Mainstream media are attempting to create the illusion of a consensus and overwhelming support for gun legislation, but that's a complete fabrication, other than in the obvious liberal bastions in parts of the country.
Because the extremist went all in, they now can't back down. This is a fight they will continue no matter what it costs their colleagues. In the end their overreach could be a good thing for freedom, as it would sweep Democrats out of power and a more conservative U.S. House and Senate would be the result.

Bill Clinton sees all this, but thankfully he wasn't heeded, as this is going to end badly for the Democrats, who are now locked into a battle they can no longer disengage from. Some of them are so delusional as to believe the media reports that Americans are behind their push to crush the Second Amendment and take away the right to bear arms.

They can say what they want, the majority of Americans know this is there end game, with so-called assault weapons and universal background checks the Trojan Horse to get them in.

Whatever happens, this will be a win/win for Second Amendment supporters, as either the Democrats will cave and they'll be voted out of office, or they'll decide to represent their constituents and vote against the draconian gun restrictions trying to be imposed on the American people.

Even if they vote for gun control, it's likely not to affect gun supporters, as it doesn't appear there are enough votes to get anything significant passed at the federal level. What it would do is open the door for Republican and/or Tea Party candidates to come into office. 

As far as it relates to the right to bear arms, that is a far better scenario than exists now.

Minnesota Gun Control Resistance Strong

The problem with the national narrative on the Second Amendment, right to bear arms, and gun control, is usually reporters and writers socialize and get quotes and comments from those that don't regularly interact with state and local politics; they see things from a skewed Washington outlook.

So when significant opposition to gun regulation is being expressed in Minnesota, pundits are surprised, when if in fact if you've spent much time in the state like I have, you would know it's a no-brainer that there won't be an easy road for politicians proposing gun control measures.

Per capita Minnesota may have as much gun ownership as any state, and it won't be easy, if possible at all, to do much more than do some background checks and mental health evaluations. It would be surprising if anything else was brought to the table and passed, as politicians in the state would surely be lucky to survive the next election.

National politicians are clueless concerning the fact that this isn't a Democrat or Republican issue, but rather an issue surrounding the freedom for all Americans to benefit from the Second Amendment if they choose to.

So when lawmakers on the national level attempt to paint it in that way, it's not believable to state and local constituents, as well as not supportable.

When considering Minnesota politically, it was believed to be a slam dunk by liberals, as almost everything in the state is controlled by Democrats.

Obama thought he had a nice, safe state to pander to in a recent visit, but Minnesota in regard to firearms is far from safe.

One Minnesota Republican expressed what many around America think support.

We aren’t doing enough because the legislators won’t let us do enough. If we want to arm teachers, we want to have armed security guards, we want to put a shooter in the scene that can actually do something, legislatures are saying no and pretending these worthless gun bills are going to do any good, which they don’t.

Minnesota Democrat Governor Mark Dayton has tested the winds and has no intention of signing any gun control regulation into law, as he faces re-election in 2014. He said the only way he would sign a gun package is if it is supported by Minnesota lawmakers from rural areas. In other words, Minnesota won't be implementing any gun control laws any time soon.

If that's the case in a blue state like Minnesota, it's unlikely to fly anywhere else except in totally liberal, elitist states where it's politically safe to do so. That's why Colorado gets so much national press, as it's considered a bellwether for the rest of the nation if gun control laws are passed with no political ramifications.

But even if it is, it's not representative of the majority of states, and politicians know that contrary to out-of-touch national leaders and media, it's at the state and local levels where much of the political payback would come.

 

No Consensus for Connecticut Lawmakers on Gun Laws

The inability for Connecticut lawmakers to reach an agreement on gun-control laws shows how deeply Americans resent politicians interfering with their right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

As usual, Democrats attempted to restrict guns, wanting to ban so-called assault weapons which account for very few homicide deaths in the United States.

The usual idea of limiting magazines to a small number of rounds was part of the legislation, as was the attempt to expand the number of "assault" weapons that would be banned.

Republicans rejected both laws, although they support strengthening background checks of some sort.

When the crazy nut killed 20 children at the elementary school, and the public still supports the right to bear arms in that state, it means lawmakers need to think in a totally different way to address the problem.

Rand Paul has offered the best idea, which many others agree with, and that is to have trained and armed school employees on hand in order to protect the children and others. That is the only way to limit the damage and make killers think twice about entering the advertised gun-free zones that the public schools are.

Other public areas like churches already have armed personnel on hand, which has cut back on the attempts to kill members of the congregations.

As for those willing to kill people using firearms, they aren't going to be deterred by penalties of stiffer jail sentences. A person reaching that decision has already lost rationality and control.

No law can protect people, and so defense needs to be the way this is handled.

Never Give Up Your Guns

As a Department of Justice memo communicates, there are very few crimes associated with high capacity magazines and assault weapons, and ridding the country of them would do extremely little to affect the number of gun deaths in America.

Nevertheless, they are using the lie in order to terrify American citizens about something that doesn't exist, in order to give the illusion of a problem so the real outcome of banning as many guns as they can is implemented.

Here's what some of the Department of Justice memo said:

Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions...Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides...

There you have it. Period. It's a non-factor, and in fact there really is no such thing as an assault weapon in America because there aren't any statistically relevant crimes they are used in.

As a matter of fact, homicides attributed to rifles in 2009 came under 350. That's only a little over one person killed in America per million using a rifle.

The bottom line is the gun owners in America need to understand we should never give up our guns for any reason.

We have a right to bear arms, and no government entity in the United States has the authority to countermand the Second Amendment, no matter how the evil authorities and mainstream media attempt to spin it.

Authorities know they can't end the right to bear arms in a single swoop. What they'll do is take a little at a time away from gun owners if we allow them to. We can't allow that to happen, and need to be vigilant and resist.

No one is going to be allowed to take guns away from Americans unless they can be manipulated into believing it's the right thing to do, and is done voluntarily.

Law enforcement knows there is no way even a fraction of guns can be confiscated, and so will work upon the weak conscious of many people in hopes of wearing down resistance so they'll meekly give them up in the years ahead.
 
This is why it's important for the enemies of the right to bear arms and protect ourselves and our families are working so hard to get anything passed at the federal or state level. Once something is in place, they'll use that as a foundation to expand gun restrictions and regulations.

Why should we never give up our guns? Because this has nothing to do with gun control, but everything to do with people control. That is the end-game in America, and we can never let that happen, no matter what the cost.

.

Smith & Wesson (SWHC), Sturm Ruger (RGR) Gun Sales Soar

The more the government attempts to clamp down on the right to bear arms, the more guns sales soar, as evidenced by the surge in gun sales as gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson (NASDAQ: SWHC) and Sturm Ruger (NASDAQ: RGR).

Some retailers are also doing much better because of gun sales, including outdoors suppliers such as Big 5 Sporting Goods (NASDAQ: BGFV), which reported results exceeding analysts' projections, largely because of the boost in gun sales.

Sturm Roger recorded a huge increase in quarterly sales in its earnings report last week; jumping by 52 percent during that period. Smith & Wesson will report on Tuesday.

Expectations are high for Smith & Wesson, with earnings projected to soar 229 percent to 23 cents a share in its latest quarter. Revenue estimates for the quarter are for the company to generate $133.68 million, an increase of 36.2 percent over last year in the same quarter.

When measured by the number of background checks for the acquisition of guns, the number of people buying guns is confirmed as skyrocketing. In December they rose by 49 percent, in January 81 percent, and in February 32 percent.

Albany Stormed by Over 7,000 Gun Supporters

Photo credit:

NY Republican Committee

The sneaky passage of the (un) SAFE Act on January 19 in New York has resulted in outrage from thousands of New York residents, who came in thousands to Albany to express their anger at the thuggery of New York politicians.

According to a number of lawmakers in the state, they has about 20 minutes to review the bill before a vote was asked for. There was very little debate a literally zero input from the public. Liberals always go this route because the general population would never go along with their attacks on freedom and liberty.

It's the same tactic that brought us the disastrous Obamacare. Nonetheless, it is subject to legal challenges because the dictator of New York, Andrew Cuomo, pushed it in a manner where the New York constitution was ignored, which requires a 3-day debate period. The bill was forced through in several hours, raising questions as to whether it is even legitimate and legal.

A New York State Supreme Court Justice Judge - Gerald Connolly - has already ordered Cuomo and leaders of the state legislature to show why the passage of the gun control law was done so quickly.

Per a lawsuit, Connolly said Cuomo and lawmakers have until March 11 to give a satisfactory answer. Connolly is considering issuing a temporary injunction before the new law is put into effect.

It's unlikely this will be the only lawsuit filed challenging the outrageous law. New York voters are already saying those voting against the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms will pay in the next election. All of us eagerly wait for that to happen.

.

Media Manipulating Gun Rights Battle

If you do some online searches, you'll find when you search for stories on the gun control, the stories increasingly filling the top spots are states that are favorable to restricting gun use in some form.

That hasn't been the case over the last several weeks, but as the stakes get higher and opposition to gun control rises, the media are trying to make it appear as if a vast majority of Americans are behind gun control, when in fact they are far more supportive of the Second Amendment.

When doing some searching today, all I saw were liberal states like Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Chicago, and Los Angeles on the front search page when searching for gun control.

You can tell they see the handwriting on the wall when the media does as much as it can to influence the minds and hearts of America by making it appear to be a minority that support the right to bear arms.

Along with that, the media continue to identify rifles as assault rifles, even though rifles only account for under 350 (2009) of the approximate 9,000 murders using guns in America. In fact, there is really no such thing as an assault rifle, if you measure it by any statistic for the reasons already mentioned: very few people are killed by them.

In other words, if it's called an "assault" rifle, there must be measurable statistics to show they are used in many killings in comparison with other firearms. How come we don't hear about assault handguns, or assault pistols? That would make more sense when using the inflammatory phrase of assault rifle, as handguns are by far the most used firearm in murders in America.

The mainstream media are trying to paint a united front as the narrative in the battle against the right to bear arms, and by doing that, are hoping to sway politicians to vote in the way the want them to.

If politicians believe there are more favoring gun control, then they will go with it. It's not the case, but the media are attempting to make that false story believable. We need to convince our representative otherwise, and remind them of the consequences of voting to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Heidi Montag, Spencer Pratt Support Right to Bear Arms

NNathanael Jones/PacificCoastNews.com

When it comes to guns and protection, there's nothing liberal about awesome Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt, as the two unashamedly take advantage of the right to bear arms and protect themselves from harm.

In this video (scroll down page), Heidi talks about her favorite gun, which she poses with to the right. How cool and inspirational is that?

Pratt was just as non-apologetic about his ownership of guns and the legal right to do so, as he said he is proud of the fact American law allows them to keep guns in their homes.

Heidi concluded that there was no way she would feel safe without the protection of guns in her home. Now that's one smart lady that doesn't always flow with the liberal, Hollywood talking points. After all, why should she and Pratt do so? It's their lives that could be at stake if an intruder or crazed fan broke in on them while they were home.

Also very cool was the fact that the couple spoke to the fact that British laws concerning guns are too strict. Too strict? Many times people who are victims of criminals in Britain are prosecuted for protecting themselves in their own homes.

Spencer and Heidi are great role models concerning gun ownership and why it's so important.

NNathanael Jones/PacificCoastNews.com

The couple met and were married on the reality show "The Hills."

Iredell, NC Wants Guns in Schools

Bold Iredell County Commissioners in North Carolina are pushing lawmakers in North Carolina to allow guns to be in the schools.

The last board meeting of the Commissioners resulted in two resolutions. The first would allow for guns to be allowed on school campuses, and the second that state lawmakers not offer support to stricter gun control laws.

"It would allow teachers who chose to do so, who had a valid North Carolina permit, to carry their weapons to school," said Commissioner David Boone.

"We just wanted to make a statement, to our General Assembly, to our representatives, that the people of Iredell County strongly support the Second Amendment," said Iredell County Commissioner Renee Griffith.

To go along with the initiative, Tuesday was declared "The Right to Bear Arms Day" in the county.

Continue reading ...

Democrat Joe Salazar Rape Comments Over Guns Blasted

In spite of a half-hearted apology for his comments on women who are in fear of being raped could indiscriminately ”pop a round at somebody,” doesn't appear to be enough to placate a lot of women.

Salazar said this in a statement after the uproar he created:

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention. We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”

Salazar was blasted by some women for these comments that led to the forced "apology":

“It’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones; it’s why we have the whistles — because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”

The stupidity of Salazar is only matched by his brutish ideology, which was the source of the pathetic idea that women aren't able to tell whether or not they're being raped, which would result in them blasting away at anyone that is around them. That's an interesting take on women, to be sure.

Why he even cluelessly made these types of comments is he's so obsessed with gun control that he will attempt to distort reality and tortuously reason out why there are absolutely no reasons for people to carry guns for self-defense - even when it comes to a woman protecting herself from a potential rapist.

This is why gun control fanatics like Salazar and his ilk are so dangerous. They are completely blinded by their hatred of the right to bear arms by the citizens of the United States, which is another way of pointing to the fact that we have the foundation in America of being a free people.

New Jersey Gun Control and Chris Christie

Just last week Governor Christie was a no-show at an important gun-rights rally.

And with anti-gun lawmakers in Trenton ramming more gun control down the throats of law-abiding New Jersey gun owners, I’m afraid Governor Christie might cave in to their anti-gun agenda.

Continue reading

Women Shouldn't Have Right to Bear Arms?

“Women are far less likely to be the victims of gun violence than men.” I guess if you’re far less likely to be a victim, there is no point in even trying to defend yourself!

She then repeats: “Women are far less likely to be the victims of gun violence than men. ... But they are far more likely than men to be killed by someone they know, generally a spouse or partner.”

Well, that settles it! Those women should not have guns.

Continue reading

SCOTUS Guarantees Right to Bear Arms

The Supreme Court affirmed 5-4 that the amendment does guarantee an individual’s right to keep and bear firearms. In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment, like the first and fourth, recognized a natural right that existed prior to the Constitution. The well-regulated militia consisted of armed men, coming together as a militia, to guard against an all-powerful central government, should one ever arise.

Continue reading