Just a Shotgun - Save Our Guns

Let’s hope The USA does not follow this madness that is in England. What are they thinking? Theft, assault, rape and all crimes will run rampant if gun control becomes law.

Just a Shotgun

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned
are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably
plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot
are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:
"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term...

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.


Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs
who had no fear of the consequences.

Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars. When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.

The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please send this to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because Barry Hussein Obama (Fast and Furious would have expidted this had he and Holder not been caught) is doing this very same thing,
over here, if he can get it done.

And there are plenty of stupid people in the Governement and on the street that will go right along with him.

A Little Gun History

will frighten all Legal Americans!

Liberals are Racists Not The Tea Party

There could be a connection as to why Liberals are against the Tea Party. Their Leader, Barry Soetoro wants to punish White People. He and his Mentors such as Rev. Wright have the most atrocious rhetoric against Whites. The Liberals are so ignorant that they don't realize many Tea Party Favorites are Women and so-called Minorities. It appears that all Conservatives, no matter ethnic background they come from are Minorities. That needs to CHANGE now or America folds. This Soetoro is Not Fit To Be Commander In Chief.

Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement

Our universities haven't taught much political history for decades. No wonder so many progressives have disdain for the principles that animated the Federalist debates.

By PETER BERKOWITZ
Highly educated people say the darndest things, these days particularly about the tea party movement. Vast numbers of other highly educated people read and hear these dubious pronouncements, smile knowingly, and nod their heads in agreement. University educations and advanced degrees notwithstanding, they lack a basic understanding of the contours of American constitutional government.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman got the ball rolling in April 2009, just ahead of the first major tea party rallies on April 15, by falsely asserting that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grass-roots) events."


Having learned next to nothing in the intervening 16 months about one of the most spectacular grass-roots political movements in American history, fellow Times columnist Frank Rich denied in August of this year that the tea party movement is "spontaneous and leaderless," insisting instead that it is the instrument of billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch.

Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne criticized the tea party as unrepresentative in two ways. It "constitutes a sliver of opinion on the extreme end of politics receiving attention out of all proportion with its numbers," he asserted last month. This was a step back from his rash prediction five months before that since it "represents a relatively small minority of Americans on the right end of politics," the tea party movement "will not determine the outcome of the 2010 elections."

In February, Mr. Dionne argued that the tea party was also unrepresentative because it reflected a political principle that lost out at America's founding and deserves to be permanently retired: "Anti-statism, a profound mistrust of power in Washington goes all the way back to the Anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution itself because they saw it concentrating too much authority in the central government."

Mr. Dionne follows in the footsteps of progressive historian Richard Hofstadter, whose influential 1964 book "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" argued that Barry Goldwater and his supporters displayed a "style of mind" characterized by "heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." Similarly, the "suspicion of government" that the tea party movement shares with the Anti-Federalists, Mr. Dionne maintained, "is not amenable to 'facts'" because "opposing government is a matter of principle."

To be sure, the tea party sports its share of clowns, kooks and creeps. And some of its favored candidates and loudest voices have made embarrassing statements and embraced reckless policies. This, however, does not distinguish the tea party movement from the competition.

Born in response to President Obama's self-declared desire to fundamentally change America, the tea party movement has made its central goals abundantly clear. Activists and the sizeable swath of voters who sympathize with them want to reduce the massively ballooning national debt, cut runaway federal spending, keep taxes in check, reinvigorate the economy, and block the expansion of the state into citizens' lives.

In other words, the tea party movement is inspired above all by a commitment to limited government. And that does distinguish it from the competition.

But far from reflecting a recurring pathology in our politics or the losing side in the debate over the Constitution, the devotion to limited government lies at the heart of the American experiment in liberal democracy. The Federalists who won ratification of the Constitution—most notably Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay—shared with their Anti-Federalist opponents the view that centralized power presented a formidable and abiding threat to the individual liberty that it was government's primary task to secure. They differed over how to deal with the threat.

The Anti-Federalists—including Patrick Henry, Samuel Bryan and Robert Yates—adopted the traditional view that liberty depended on state power exercised in close proximity to the people. The Federalists replied in Federalist 9 that the "science of politics," which had "received great improvement," showed that in an extended and properly structured republic liberty could be achieved and with greater security and stability.

This improved science of politics was based not on abstract theory or complex calculations but on what is referred to in Federalist 51 as "inventions of prudence" grounded in the reading of classic and modern authors, broad experience of self-government in the colonies, and acute observations about the imperfections and finer points of human nature.

It taught that constitutionally enumerated powers; a separation, balance, and blending of these powers among branches of the federal government; and a distribution of powers between the federal and state governments would operate to leave substantial authority to the states while both preventing abuses by the federal government and providing it with the energy needed to defend liberty.

Whether members have read much or little of The Federalist, the tea party movement's focus on keeping government within bounds and answerable to the people reflects the devotion to limited government embodied in the Constitution. One reason this is poorly understood among our best educated citizens is that American politics is poorly taught at the universities that credentialed them. Indeed, even as the tea party calls for the return to constitutional basics, our universities neglect The Federalist and its classic exposition of constitutional principles.

For the better part of two generations, the best political science departments have concentrated on equipping students with skills for performing empirical research and teaching mathematical models that purport to describe political affairs. Meanwhile, leading history departments have emphasized social history and issues of race, class and gender at the expense of constitutional history, diplomatic history and military history.

Neither professors of political science nor of history have made a priority of instructing students in the founding principles of American constitutional government. Nor have they taught about the contest between the progressive vision and the conservative vision that has characterized American politics since Woodrow Wilson (then a political scientist at Princeton) helped launch the progressive movement in the late 19th century by arguing that the Constitution had become obsolete and hindered democratic reform.

Then there are the proliferating classes in practical ethics and moral reasoning. These expose students to hypothetical conundrums involving individuals in surreal circumstances suddenly facing life and death decisions, or present contentious public policy questions and explore the range of respectable progressive opinions for resolving them. Such exercises may sharpen students' ability to argue. They do little to teach about self-government.

They certainly do not teach about the virtues, or qualities of mind and character, that enable citizens to shoulder their political responsibilities and prosper amidst the opportunities and uncertainties that freedom brings. Nor do they teach the beliefs, practices and associations that foster such virtues and those that endanger them.

Those who doubt that the failings of higher education in America have political consequences need only reflect on the quality of progressive commentary on the tea party movement. Our universities have produced two generations of highly educated people who seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental American principles, even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses.

Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

THE BEST DEAR ABBY EVER - Stop Marxism

Dear Abby,

My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit-card bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. Says pay the minimum and lets our kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the interest. Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of them no longer speak to us.

The few who do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more. Also, he has gotten religious. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and the next he's with Muslims.

Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath. It's just so horribly creepy! Can you help?

Signed,

Lost in DC

------------------------------------------
Dear Lost:

Stop whining, Michelle. You're getting to live in the White House for free, travel the world, and have others pay for everything for you. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. The rest of us are stuck with the SOB for two more years!

Signed,

Abby

Remember The Meaning of Independence Day - Reclaim America

This has been bothering me for some time and I must address it. This Pierce MorganS guy comes to our Country and insults our traditions? How much money has this Limousine Liberal made off of America? He attacks the Cowboy Hat of John Rich. John Rich is a true American and let this slide as he was helping other People, not just himself. Did Pierce MorganS attack little John for his Dreads?

Send this Pierce MorganS back to Ireland or England or better yet, boot his arse back to Iran. Let the Country Club LIBERAL Pierce MorganS tell some Guy in Iran that the Towel On His Head is very ANNOYING! The Iran People would stone him and feed him to the Goats.

Forget the debt crisis, the budget, the Job Killer EPA growing by 125%, illegal Obamacare, the failing economy and millions of unemployed Americans. All of the White People must be quiet or you are Racist! Let the Community Organizer destroy the Country, you White People just have to give him a chance? NO!

We like Allen West for his ideas, service to the Country and his love of America. We do not care about the color of his skin. We like Michele Bachmann for her intelligence, her fight for what is RIGHT for America! We do not care about the color of her skin!

We have too many Americans cowering to Political Correctness and the Limousine Liberals. There is no further evidence than having People elect the most Racist, Anti-American President simply for the color of his skin. So today on Independence Day let us be reminded that our Fore Fathers fought the Pierce MorganS types and Big Government to start this Great Country. Please do not cower in the corner and hand it over to Radical islam, Big Government and Marxist Liberals.

EPA: Obama Job Killer

EPA regulations aim to close power plants, sending
hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment line!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has plans to impose 946 pages of new regulations on U.S. power plants.

Disregarding the fact that U.S. energy companies' emissions are already low, and considerably less than pollutants found in nature from volcanoes and geysers, the EPA is primed and ready to send American businesses and consumers an annual bill of $10.9 billion a year!

The EPA is imposing Barack Obama's agenda to use air pollution and carbon dioxide restrictions as an effort to require energy companies to lower emissions to zero, which will bankrupt coal companies - causing utility rates to skyrocket!

The American Electric Power Co. Inc. told The Houston Chronicle that the EPA's new regulations would require the company to shut down five plants and reduce operations at six others, with a loss of 600 jobs, to comply with new rules for coal-fired power plants.

According to U.S. News and World Report: The EPA's pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.


TELL CONGRESS IT'S TIME FOR THE EPA TO GO!
WE MUST STOP THE EPA....NOW!


As a result, the EPA's regulations will not only lead to increased unemployment, but will also lead to higher prices on food, and increased costs for heating and air conditioning!

The EPA claims that its regulations are fair, and are an effort to limit emissions of mercury, lead and other toxins from coal-fired plants. But to build its case against mercury, the EPA ignored evidence and clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda - which is to punish hydrocarbon use.

According to Willie Soon, an independent scientist and expert on mercury and public health issues, and Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the EPA systematically cherry-picked supportive studies (many of them dated) and ignored extensive evidence and clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda, which is to punish hydrocarbon use and close down coal-fired power plants.

And, to advance its green agenda, the EPA has given at least $3.8 billion in taxpayer money to various nonprofit and advocacy organizations and environmental justice groups over the past decade.

Soon and Driessen report that: America's coal-burning power plants emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year. Cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons. Chinese power plants eject 400 tons, and volcanoes, sub-sea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year. And, the 200 million tons of mercury naturally present in seawater have never posed a danger to any living being.

Please CLICK HERE to FAX Congress to tell members to STOP THE EPA'S DRACONIAN JOB-KILLING REGULATIONS! Urge members to vote for S.892, a bill that would save up-to $3 billion a year, and SAVE AMERICAN JOBS! Please also include a DONATION to the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund, so we can continue to inform Americans about government overreach.

And yet, the EPA nevertheless demands that utility companies spend billions every year retrofitting the coal-fired power plants that produce half of all U.S. electricity, and 70 to 98% of electricity in 12 states.

Soon and Driessen add that: mercury (Hg) has always existed naturally in Earth's environment; mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and trees (which absorb it from the environment). This is why our bodies evolved with proteins and antioxidants that help protect us from this and other potential contaminants.

A further defense comes from selenium, which is found in fish and animals.

Its strong attraction to mercury molecules protects fish and people against buildups of methylmercury, mercury's biologically active and more toxic form.

The EPAs regulators simultaneously ignore the positive results of medical studies that clearly show its new restrictions are not needed and will not improve people's health. ... The proposed standards will do nothing to reduce exaggerated threats from mercury and other air pollutants. Indeed, the rules will worsen, rather than improve America's health -- especially for young children and women of child-bearing age. Not only will they raise heating, air conditioning and food costs; they will scare people away from nutritious fish that should be a part of everyone's diet.

Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere. And, while environmentalists are very concerned about the 41 to 48 tons of mercury released into the atmosphere by U.S. coal-fired power plants, they don't see a threat in the 400 tons of mercury coughed up by China's fossil fuel power plants.

The EPA nevertheless demands that American utility companies spend billions every year retrofitting coal-fired power plants that produce half of all U.S. electricity.

CLICK HERE to FAX Congress to tell members to STOP THE EPA'S DRACONIAN JOB-KILLING REGULATIONS! Urge members to vote for S. 892, a bill that would save up-to $3 billion a year, and SAVE AMERICAN JOBS! Please also include a DONATION to the CDFE Action Fund, so we can continue to inform Americans about government overreach.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the price hikes from a 15 percent cut in emissions would increase energy costs for the average American household to between $680 and $1,500, every year!

The Wall Street Journal reports that: ...the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states.

Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation.

In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.

With the nation's electrical power grids already taxed, green car manufacturers like GM want Congress to slap an additional $1 per gallon tax on gasoline to force consumers to buy electric cars. GM wants people plugging their cars into an electrical outlet for fuel rather than at the neighborhood Exxon, putting even greater stress on the electrical power grids as the EPA tries to kill the coal industry without wondering where those electric cars are going to “fill up” during the brown outs that will become much more common without the ample supply of electricity coal provides.

RIGHT NOW, the EPA continues to overreach its authority by pushing the Obama Administration's green agenda which will ultimately destroy the American economy by imposing impossible regulations that will bankrupt U.S. businesses, leading to even more employee layoffs and imposing lower standards of living on American consumers.

Stop the EPA's harmful regulations that are costly and unnecessary! SEND FAXES to every member of Congress to alert them to STOP the EPA's POWER GRAB! These regulations will cut American jobs and increase food and utility prices for hard-working American families! Please also include a DONATION to the CDFE Action Fund, so we can continue to inform Americans about government overreach.

To put an end to the EPA's unnecessary and costly regulations, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), introduced S.892, the Consolidation of Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency Act of 2011, a bill that would merge the Department of Energy (DOE) and the EPA into a single, new agency called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE).

By combining the duplicative functions of the EPA and DOE, the consolidation could save U.S. taxpayers more than $3 billion a year based on projections made by the Government Accountability Office and the President's 2012 budget request.

The DOEE could also restore the original stated purpose and goals of the EPA, which included protecting human health, safeguarding the natural environment and addressing the energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges of the U.S. through transformative science and technology solutions - without overreaching its constitutional authority.

Sen. Burr's bill would ELIMINATE the EPA's unfair and unnecessary regulations that penalize hard-working Americans who, under the EPA's new requirements, would suffer job losses and would be impoverished by the exorbitant costs added to food and utilities.

If Congress passes S.892, the EPA's excessive penalties on U.S. energy companies would be eliminated - saving $3 billion, annually!

Please CLICK HERE TO DEMAND THAT CONGRESS ABOLISH THE EPA! FAX every member of Congress and urge them to support S.892, which will merge the EPA into the Department of Energy. Help STOP the EPA's new regulations before they destroy U.S. industries and our economy! ACT NOW to save America's free enterprise system. Please also include a DONATION to the CDFE Action Fund, so we can continue to inform Americans about government overreach.

Sen. Burr's bill would save money by combining the duplicative functions of the EPA and DOE, and would also ensure that the two entities have a coordinated approach that benefits the environment without imposing outrageous regulations on U.S. energy companies.

The amount of money wasted annually on [the EPA and DOE's] duplicative programs within the federal government is staggering, Sen. Burr said. Merging the two would combine support and administrative offices, and eliminate ineffective or duplicative programs.

Together, we can move Congress to support S.892 - a bill that will save taxpayers $3 billion each year by eliminating the EPA's wasteful spending and harmful regulations!

ABOLISH THE EPA by rolling it into the Department of Energy to reduce wasteful spending, and STOP the EPA's harmful job-killing regulations!
Together, we can move Congress to VOTE FOR S.892 - a bill that will eliminate the EPA's job-killing regulations!

Writte by Ron Arnold
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund
www.cdfe.org/cdfe-action-fund

P. S. The EPA is overreaching its authority by making concerted efforts to push the Obama Administration's political agenda. These efforts include penalizing U.S. energy companies by adding $10.9 billion a year to their costs, which will lead to higher unemployment rates, pass expenses on to American consumers, and put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage. This is why we must unite and demand that members of Congress support and vote for S. 892---a plan that will end the EPA's draconian job-killing regulations!