Meathead is still a Meathead

Jan 29, 2012 by

One of my favorite shows as I was growing up was ‘All in the Family.’ But from the first the one person on the show that I disliked was meathead. Meathead was played by Rob Reiner who is so typical of the liberals that infest Hollywood to this day. I vividly remember one episode where Archie and meathead get into an argument over the second amendment to the Constitution. Back then I was not a gun collector but I had a deep respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the argument meathead took the position that the second amendment meant that only the militia were guaranteed the right to bear arms. He based this on his distorted usage of that term in the amendment. This is a common argument used by liberals today in their misguided attempts to disarm us all and leave us at the mercy of criminals and a possible tyrannical government. For those liberals who are unfamiliar with the second amendment I will reproduce it for you.

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.

Seems pretty straightforward and unambiguous, as the founding fathers no doubt thought. But the founding fathers had never envisioned the modern day liberal. From experience I can say that most liberals arguments are not based on facts but are a twisted perversion of reality. Liberals have taken a single, straightforward sentence and twisted it around in a feeble attempt to foist their beliefs on us all.

First, meathead’s definition of militia is completely wrong. I think he interpreted the modern day militia to be the National Guard.  The definition of militia as given by Merriam-Webster is:

a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b:the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

But when the Bill of Rights was written the definition of Militia was somewhat different. Back then the militia was defined as the whole body of able-bodied citizens. This included men and women. Merriam-Webster uses this definition too but has added that this includes men only and declared by law as being subject to call to military service. Even if we accept Merriam-Websters definition to include men only and declared by law, this includes most of the male population as all men are subject to the draft to this very day.

But even with the phrase ‘well regulated militia’ added to the second amendment, this does not imply that a well regulated militia is the sole justification for the right to keep and bear arms. What meathead conveniently leaves out of his argument is the fact that the second part of the second amendment does not say: ‘the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’  It specifically states the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of PEOPLE and infringed don’t liberals understand?

My final argument is that when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the arms that would later equip the militia that won our freedom from the British were in the hands of the people before a militia was ever organized and called into service. The arms were not supplied by the government. If we are ever confronted with a tyrannical government sometime in the future, how is a militia ever going to be formed to defend liberty if the guns needed to defend against that tyranny are in the governments hands and not we the people’s hands? Please answer that question for me meathead.

 

 

read more

NRA Joint Statement on Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

Jul 17, 2009 by

Joint Statement
Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association
And
Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, National Rifle Association – Institute For Legislative Action
On
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Nomination To The United States Supreme Court

Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions.  Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment.  History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation.  In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.  In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States.  Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

read more

Too many are ready to see others stripped of their rights.

Jun 23, 2009 by

watching-youIt seems another Democrat, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, has found a “terror gap” that must be filled. Democrats are always finding a gap or a loophole in existing laws and policies such that if the gap is not closed or the loophole eliminated “it will threaten our families and our communities.” The “terror gap” that Sen. Lautenberg has ferreted out refers to the government’s terrorist watch list.

The terrorist watch list is a list that is maintained by DHS that contains over a million names of supposed “terrorists” that are a threat to the security of the United States. If you are on the list you can be prevented from flying on a commercial jet and denied a visa. Now it seems that being on the list may prevent you from purchasing a firearm.

No matter that the list contains tens of thousands of names of people who were erroneously added to the list and have broken no laws or committed any acts of terrorism. According to the NRA chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, the “integrity of the terror watch list is poor, as it mistakenly contains the names of many men and women who have violated no law.” “In fact, a March 2009 report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice concluded that many people whose names were mistakenly placed on the list remain there even after their cases have been vetted and closed.”

Since 2004 963 background checks for the purchase of firearms using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System “resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records; of these matches, approximately 90 percent were allowed to proceed because the checks revealed no prohibiting information,” the GAO report says. Under current law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms because they appear on the terrorist watch list. This according to the GAO’s director of homeland security and justice issues, Eileen R. Larence.

According to Sen. Lautenberg, this is “proof positive” that known and suspected terrorists are exploiting a major “loophole” in our law. The “loophole” that Sen. Lautenber is apparently referring to is something called the Constitution of the United States, specifically the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. As previously stated by the GAO, unless the person on the watch list has committed a crime or has some other factor that prohibits the purchase of a firearm under existing laws, the simple fact of being on the terrorist watch list does not prohibit you from purchasing a firearm. This is as it should be.

Sen. Lautenberg is introducing legislation that would give the U.S. attorney general “authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists.” But the problem is that many of those who are on the terrorists watch list are not in fact terrorists at all. In most cases they are people who are vocal in their support of certain issues that run contrary to the current policies of the government. They are not terrorists, have not committed any crimes, and are protected by the Constitution as are all other citizens. Simply being on a watch list does not and should not strip you of your Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The legislation proposed by Sen. Lautenberg would deprive innocent people of due process as well as illegally strip them of their rights. I am sure that the existing laws and procedures that apply to all citizens when applying for the purchase of a firearm are more than adequate to prevent any real terrorists on the watch list from acquiring firearms, even if they were not on the watch list. All Sen. Lautenberg’s bill would do is deny everyone else on the list who is not a terrorist and has not committed a crime the right to purchase a firearm.

Lists of citizens who are “suspected terrorists” based solely on their political beliefs date back to the days of J Edgar Hoover. Hoover had extensive files on many Americans, including Elvis Presley, whose only crimes were that their political beliefs ran counter to what Hoover thought they should be. But the most disturbing thing to me about this whole issue is a CNN poll in which readers were asked whether people on the terrorist watch list should be allowed to purchase firearms. An amazing 89 percent thought it was perfectly acceptable to deny someone their Constitutional rights based solely on an inaccurate, outdated and politically motivated list maintained by an organization who is notorious for trampling on the rights of citizens.

I can only assume that the vast majority of citizens actually think that the terrorist watch list really contains the names of a million known terrorists who have committed crimes against the United States. Of course if this were true you would think that there would be a huge federal manhunt under way to apprehend these “threats to our families and our communities.” But the real facts are that the majority of the people on the terrorist watch list are our families and our communities and are no more a threat to the security of our nation than you or me. In fact I would submit that Sen. Lautenberg and AG Holder are more of a threat to this great Republic than most of those on the list. I hope that when I go to board my plane this August for our trip to Hawaii that my name does not show up on the list. After all, writing this article is probably grounds for being added to the list. (Not to mention being involved in 2 Tea Parties.)

read more

Gun control advocates up in arms again.

Mar 10, 2009 by

s_safetyrules The tragic murder of a pregnant woman by an 11 year old boy has given gun control advocates fuel to add to their misguided attempts to take firearms away from law-abiding Americans. The 11 year old used a 20-gauge shotgun that was given to him by his father to fatally shoot the father’s pregnant girlfriend.

The article by the Associated Press highlights the fact that hunting is a way of life in the rural area where 11 year old Jordan Brown regularly practiced target shooting with his 20-gauge, youth model shotgun. The article goes on to say that gun control advocates are worried that manufacturers are increasingly focusing their marketing toward children with smaller, lighter models that are easier for them to handle.

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group in Washington, D.C., says:

The industry portrays youth gun possession as risk-free, and when something bad happens, they always blame the kid and not the presence of the gun. We think the risks clearly outweigh the benefits.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Every firearm I have ever purchased came with many warnings and cautions about the safe handling and storage of firearms. No one in the firearms industry considers firearm ownership and use to be risk-free. Firearms are to be treated with the same respect and care that you would afford a chain saw or a skill saw or any other potentially dangerous tool. If used with care and common sense, firearms are no more dangerous than any other potentially dangerous object. I have seen ladders with 12 warning labels on them but people still fall off them every day. The same holds true with firearms. Paul Helmke, president of the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said:

If you are keeping loaded guns around the house and you have kids, you’re asking for a tragedy.

Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Most gun owners who have children in the house are very aware of the potential for tragedy and act accordingly. But no matter how many laws you pass or hoops you require a gun owner to jump through, there is always going to be some irresponsible parent who doe not adhere to proper safety precautions. The same is true with drunk drivers. You can pass laws until the cows come home but some people are still going to drive drunk. Parents who negligently cause their children to be injured or killed by their guns will be punished by the law, the same as a drunk driver. No responsible gun-owning parent is “asking” for a tragedy. Jerry Feaser, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, put the incident in the proper perspective.

The Brown case violated the basic tenets of firearm safety and hunting safety. This had nothing to do with hunting.

I would like to take this opportunity to fire a few salvos at the gun control advocates. One of the comments made in the article was that in many states rifles and shotguns are not registered and are not required to be sold with trigger locks. First, I don’t see how registering a rifle or shotgun would contribute to firearms safety. As for not selling rifles or shotguns with trigger locks, every firearm I have purchased in Virginia was sold with a locking mechanism.

I would also like to highlight a few statistics that show how safe firearms really are. Various statistics on firearm ownership in the United States put the number of firearms owned as high as 235,000,000. 42% of U.S. households own firearms. Yet in 2007, FBI statistics recorded 10,086 firearm homicides in 49 states. 235 million firearms yet only 11,348 firearms related homicides. You can do the math but it is easy to see that the vast majority of firearms in America are never used in a crime. On the other hand the Virginia Citizens Defense League estimates that there are about 2,500,000 defensive uses of a firearm in the United States every year. That is 2,500,000 instances were a crime was prevented or someone’s life was saved. In 92% of those cases no shots were fired.

As for total deaths due to firearms, in the U.S. for 2001 there were 29,573 deaths of which 16,869 were suicide, 11,348 homicides (as previously stated), 802 accidental and 323 by legal intervention. Again the statistics show that accidental deaths by firearms were only 802 in a whole year with over 200 million firearms in America. So firearm ownership by responsible parents is hardly “asking for a tragedy.”

Looking at accident statistics for areas other that firearms portrays a much clearer picture of the “dangers” of firearms. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2005, there were 32,691 poisoning deaths in the United States. Of those deaths 23,618 (72%) were unintentional (compared to the 802 accidental deaths by firearms) and 3,240 (10%) were of undetermined intent. That leaves almost 6,000 deaths that were basically homicide or suicide by poisoning.

When you start talking about automobile accidents in the United States the statistics are staggering. In 2005 there were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States. Those accidents resulted in 2.9 million people injured and 42,636 people killed. Comparing the total deaths due to firearms of 29,573 to the total deaths due to auto accidents of 42,536, you tell me which is more dangerous, firearms ownership or automobile ownership? Do those statistics warrant the statement that owning a automobile is tantamount to “asking for a tragedy?” That is the statement made by Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Ask yourself where you think it would be safer for your 16 year old son or daughter to be, out hunting with you or driving alone on the Interstate. My money is on hunting with you. What do you think?

read more