RT @PatDollard: Judge Who Ended Jihadi Interrogation Without DOJ Approval Spoke In Egypt At The Invitation Of The Muslim Brotherhood http:/… 3 days ago
Here is a feel good story for a Friday. The ladies out on the range. What could be better? Here we go:
What’s unique on this range is that all the gun owners are members of A Girl and A Gun Women’s Shooting League—and they’re all firing AR-15 semiautomatic rifles.
“I think there is a small bit of status for a gal that says she owns an AR-15,” said Juliana Crowder, president and co-founder of A Girl and a Gun. “Especially right now, since they’re so hard to get a hold of.” ( Read more: Aurora Shooting Survivor: ‘People Kill, Not Guns’)
Recent attempts to pass stricter gun laws are having an unintended effect: AR-15s are flying off store shelves. The rifles and their accessories account for roughly a billion dollars of the $4 Billion U.S. Gun Industry.
“The AR-15 is becoming extremely popular among women,” said Crowder. “Some women are very gadgety or want to be personalized, they’re painting them, getting these different grips and colors, and stylizing it. It’s very popular because they can build it to their own specifications– use it for fun, and feel pride of ownership in it.”
Crowder’s own AR-15 is purple—the same color as her former dance studio. An ex-dance teacher, Crowder now focuses her time on her all-female shooting league. In just two years it’s grown to 28 chapters in eleven states. (Read more:New York’s Assault Weapon Registration Begins)
“My favorite thing about my AR-15 rifle is the confidence I feel when I shoot it at the range,” said Girl and a Gun member Jennifer Galle. “It gives me a sense that I can defend myself, that I can do this, and it brings me peace of mind knowing that this is a weapon that I can use for my own personal protection.” (Read More: Newtown Mom Makes Heart-Wrenching Plea on U.S. Gun Laws)
“We know we can be safe,” Crowder agrees. “We can be efficient. We can be effective to defend ourselves with that particular tool as our husbands and our fathers can.”
The Senate’s top Democrat says he will force a vote Thursday on whether to open debate on tougher gun laws. Another monstrosity that does not come up through committees, without hearings.
What we do know, is that the ACLU has found enough to be concerned: ACLU attacks Reid’s Gun Law, cites Privacy and Civil Liberties. One of the major concerns is the background checks that seem to be the most likely to pass. Presently, almost all information obtained in the check is thrown out in 24 hours. There is nothing proposed that would include this 24 hour provision. So your background check information could be retained forever thus by de facto be gun registration.
Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”
“[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “
“As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”
“And existing law also bars the use of those records for other purposes,” Calabrese continued, explaining that the government is supposed to be barred by the Privacy Act from transferring database information between agencies without the consent of the individual citizen.
Search as I may for any new information on the gun control bill , I found nothing. Nada. After listening to a rousing and stirring rant by Mark Levin on the subject, the only thing I can offer is a Mark Levin archive of his program at his website done last night, and I encourage everyone who cares one wit about the subject, to listen to the first minutes, It can be found here for the date April 9, 2013. Scroll down to audio rewind. 04/09 The Mark Levin Show
Here is a short clip to get you in the mood to hear the full thing:
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan deal seems imminent on expanding background checks to more gun buyers, an agreement that could build support for President Barack Obama’s drive to curb firearms violence.
Meanwhile, the Senate is ready for an opening vote on restricting guns as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., set a roll call for Thursday on starting consideration of the firearms legislation. Odds are growing that Democrats will win enough Republican support to thwart an effort by conservatives and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to block consideration from even starting.
My modem is down, so have not been able to post. keep in mind, the ACLU was opposed to the gun bill. So while everyone is in a tizzy about the NRA… These are the facts. Here is a repost ..trying to do it from my iPad.
While the talking heads seem to blow off any concern about universal background checks as nothing serious and the “at least” we can do, it is a trojan horse according to the ACLU as they looked at the Reid bill that is floating around in the Senate.
Recent surveys indicate the vast majority of Americans appear to be ok with this. The Daily Caller has a post that gives us a heads up. Let’s not fall asleep on this one. Here we go: As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have “serious concerns” about the bill. The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday
. “The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.” “[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,”
Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.” “As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.” “And existing law also bars the use of those records for other purposes,” Calabrese continued, explaining that the government is supposed to be barred by the Privacy Act from transferring database information between agencies without the consent of the individual citizen. “Contrast this with what the existing [Reid] legislation says, which is simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” Calabrese highlighted, “and it doesn’t have any of the protections that we have in current law for existing licensees.” “And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes,”
Calabrese said. “For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.” “So you just worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.” “
Regulations … shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee,” according to the bill. The ACLU’s second “significant concern” with Reid’s legislation is that it too broadly defines the term “transfer,” creating complicated criminal law that law-abiding Americans may unwittingly break. “[I]t’s certainly a civil liberties concern,” Calabrese told TheDC. “You worry about, in essence, a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law.” “They don’t intend to transfer a gun or they don’t think that’s what they’re doing, but under the law they can be defined as making a transfer. We think it’s important that anything that is tied to a criminal sanction be easy to understand and avoid allowing too much prosecutorial discretion.” “For example, different gun ranges are treated differently,” Calabrese said. “You’re firing a firearm in one geographic location, you’re OK, but in another, you’re not. And those kind things, it’s going to be hard for your average consumer to really internalize and figure out the difference.” “Criminal sanctions shouldn’t hinge on those kinds of differences,” he said. Separate from the ACLU’s concerns with a universal background check system, Calabrese flagged another provision of the legislation invented by Sen. Boxer that the ACLU is “worried about” — school tiplines for the reporting of “potentially dangerous students” “We’re worried about this tip line,” Calabrese admitted. “We think we already have a phone number for reporting dangerous situations — it’s called 9-1-1.” “The tip line doesn’t have any guidance for who should be included, how we should vet these requests, who should be included in the system, what you should do with this information once you get it,” he warned. “It just seems like a dangerously unregulated avenue that’s going to risk pushing more kids into the criminal justice system.” “What’s a school supposed to do if they get an anonymous phone call that some kid is dangerous?” Calabrese went on. “How are they supposed to treat that? Do they have liability if they ignore it? Should this kid be suspended? Or should he be scrutinized by a school safety officer because of an anonymous tip?” Read more: Daily Caller Here is where the information will remain: Filmed from Redwood Road, you can see the progress of the NSA’s Utah Data Center also called the NSA Spy Center FROM: NSA Spy Center Revealed: 100 years worth of data
It was certainly rich hearing Obama gain attention this weekend. We had his Saturday’s remarks, and of course he had to be sure he was seen on Easter. It sounds like Obama has found his religious home again. First the Pastor’s remark, and then let’s reflect on Obama and his own dissing of Christianity.
President Obama and his family this morning went to Easter Sunday services at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. Here are notes on the Easter service from the pool reporter, which included this part, “It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus … for women to be back in the kitchen … for immigrants to be back on their side of the border”
Then we have Obama’s Saturday remarks regarding Easter that makes one cringe:
….Of course, those values are at the heart not just of the Christian faith; but of all faiths. From Judaism to Islam; Hinduism to Sikhism; there echoes a powerful call to serve our brothers and sisters. To keep in our hearts a deep and abiding compassion for all. And to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves.
That’s the common humanity that binds us together. And as Americans, we’re united by something else, too: faith in the ideals that lie at the heart of our founding*; and the belief that, as part of something bigger than ourselves, we have a shared responsibility to look out for our fellow citizens.
Here is Obama’s bizarre view on his personal salvation. Apparently only if we agree to becoming a Marxist nation, can the man find salvation.
In case there are any questions left, Obama mocks the Christianity and the second amendment.
Peril from ‘patriots’ reads the headline from the LA Times. They claim more dangerous than International terrorists..The survey going on at the link now is reading “Should we worry about patriot groups”? is reading 95 percent no, 5 percent yes. Wander over if you care to share your opinion. In what has to be the most absurd piece of writing, the “Neanderthal” patriots love their guns is really the gist of it. So if the government grabs them, we will be so much better for it. Keep in mind, there were no illegal guns at Waco.
The U.S. needs to keep a close watch on the growing threat of home-grown extremist groups
Patriot groups first began surfacing after the massacre of a bizarre sect by federal agents in Waco, Texas, in the early 1990s.
Just a reminder below:
There are, in increasingly frightening numbers, cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government. They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal.They’re not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been tracking hate groups for 30 years, released its latest report on the growth of these organizations this week. Its findings were, to say the least, alarming.
Patriot groups are motivated by a host of anti-government attitudes, but their primary focus is guns. They are convinced that the government is out to seize their weapons, even though most legislation is focused on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or restricting the types of weapons that can be sold. Many are also united by belief in an outlandish one-world government conspiracy theory positing that the United Nations is poised to strip away American property rights and impose socialism on us all.
The typical patriot acts within his free-speech and 2nd Amendment rights, and in fact most patriot activity consists of venting steam by meeting with like-minded Neanderthals and firing off blog posts threatening civil war. (So now they tell us).
This video compares the use of AR-15 to a shotgun by the little lady! After Biden explains the advantage of using a shotgun, a demonstration is given. Which one would you prefer? Keep in mind there are plenty of women who know how to shoot and have been given proper training.
I found the essay and video that follows over at Adriennes’s blog. Matt Bracken: Democidethe elimination of a despised group by a government. It is a long essay, but one to save for the historical record. There is no better explanation for the 2nd amendment, and what can go wrong when we lose this right. But first, a short clip from Orwell, and then a clip from the post.
From the 2003 Television docudrama: George Orwell – A Life in Pictures
Please share the essay and video as widely as possible on RKBA and other freedomista blogs and websites. Copy it all, save it all, I expect a serious effort by the commie rat bastards to squelch this message, especially the video.
Matt Bracken: Democidethe elimination of a despised group by a government.
Democide is the elimination of a despised group by a government. It includes genocide, politicide, and other forms of state-sponsored mass murder. The hated minority headed for extermination may be defined by religious, racial, political, class, cultural or other attributes. Between 200 and 260 million people were the victims of democide in the 20th century, several times more than were killed in international wars during that period.
The first widely studied modern democide occurred in Turkey between 1915 and 1923, when the Turkish government decided to eliminate the country’s Christian minority, primarily ethnic Armenians and Greeks who had Turkish roots extending back to before the Islamic conquest. Two million Christians were murdered on forced marches into deserts without water or food. This democide occurred in view of Western reporters, who took photographs and posted contemporary wire reports. The fact that the democide was known outside Turkey did not deter the Turkish leaders.
The Armenian Genocide, as it has become known, was also widely known inside Turkey, where the majority Muslim population either supported or at least passively tolerated the democide. It was impossible to miss the sight of thousands of Christians at a time being rounded up and force-marched through towns and into the burning deserts on one-way trips.
Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the democide of Turkish Christians and planned accordingly. In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s henchmen purged millions of “kulaks” (farmers deemed to have too much wealth), intellectuals, businessmen, and anyone who had ever traveled outside the USSR or even had had contact with foreigners.
In Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, Hitler proceeded with his own “final solution to the Jewish problem.” Where the German nationalsocialists simply eliminated Jews as quickly as possible in mass graves and gas chambers, Stalin’s international socialists deported their “class enemies” to Siberia, where they were put to work in Gulag slave-labor camps, with years of torture through cold, malnutrition and brutal working conditions preceding the release of eventual death.
Stalin also devised another means of democide when he ordered the forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and five million more innocent victims were added to his totals. In Communist China seventy million people were the victims of democide, murdered by overwork in slave-labor camps, by direct execution, and by regional forced starvation. Millions more were victims of democide in Pakistan, Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, and many other countries.
Democide, as the name implies, does not happen in the dark of night without any awareness of it in the country where it occurs. The Turks knew the Christians were being mass murdered. Average Germans were fully aware of what was happening to the Jews between 1938 and 1945, and a large majority either actively supported or at least tolerated it. (I strongly recommend reading Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Goldhagen, to fully appreciate the wholehearted German support for the Jewish democide.)
Today, we sometimes hear that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness, that it is a relic of our barbaric past and is no longer needed in the modern era. Horrific mass shootings by deranged individuals are cited as the primary reason for Americans to surrender their most effective firearms and rely solely on a state monopoly of force for their protection. This government-dependent attitude is shortsighted, historically ignorant, and extremely dangerous.
In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the road to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In Turkey, “reasonable” gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the “commonsense” 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler’s Holocaust by a decade.
The Weimar politicians did not intend for their gun control laws to lead to the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical fact that those gun control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their Holocaust. How? By making it economically and militarily feasible to round up and mass murder entire towns without any significant resistance.
In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they needed only a hundred ordinary military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish Jews in a single day. Contrast that fact with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. If the Jews had not first been disarmed, using previous gun registration lists as a map for confiscation, the Holocaust would not have been possible.
Likewise in the Soviet Union and in every other case, democide was preceded by “reasonable and commonsense” firearms registration, followed eventually by gun confiscation and then by the extermination of a despised minority population.
During the past two centuries, while America has avoided tyranny, Turkey, Germany, Russia and the other nations mentioned above have spasmodically lurched between monarchs, democratically elected leaders, and often quite popular dictators, allowing them frequent opportunities to commit democide against their unwanted minorities.
The situation is fundamentally different in America, because we have a centuries-old tradition of private firearms ownership guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not “grant” us this right; it puts into writing our God-given natural right to effective self-defense, including armed defense against tyranny.
“Pure democracy” has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on their dinner plans. The two wolves might see this election as an expression of their highest democratic values, but for the outnumbered sheep, pure democracy is highly problematic. On the other hand, a republic has been described as two wolves and a well-armed sheep voting on dinner plans. The well-armed sheep can veto the outcome of the dinner election simply by brandishing its firearm. The sheep has inherent rights as a sovereign individual, including the right to self-defense, a right that cannot be stripped away by a simple majority vote.
So, when a democratically elected American president speaks of “fundamentally transforming” his country, and of his need to act outside the constitutional framework, the population should be on guard. When that leader begins to push for strict new “commonsense and reasonable” gun control laws, including national firearms registration in the name of “public safety,” the citizenry should be on high alert.
Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States? Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not.
The future may be unknowable, but history is well understood, and American gun owners know and understand the history of democide in the 20th century. That is why they will never accede to what is currently portrayed in the predominantly left-wing mainstream media as “commonsense and reasonable” new gun control laws.
While American gun owners lament and regret the inescapable fact that deranged individuals in a free country may on rare occasions murder a dozen or a score of unarmed victims, they also understand that government democide murders by the million. And in every case, tyrants can conduct these democides only after disarming their unwanted minorities, rendering them helpless to resist murderous government pogroms.
American gun owners will never permit this historical pattern to be repeated in their country, because they understand that the government’s heavy hand will be kept in check only as long as they are armed. Ask yourself: Were the Armenians, the Jews or the kulaks treated better, or worse, after they were disarmed and rendered helpless by their oppressors, who thereafter held an absolute government monopoly on armed violence? The answer is too obvious to require elaboration.
Naive utopians and other “low-information voters” might not understand the historical pattern, and we don’t expect them to bother to learn it. Cynical and dishonest “progressives” who do understand the historical pattern cannot yet reveal their ultimate goal of creating a disarmed and helpless American citizenry. Nevertheless, millions of Americans understand their hidden aim with crystal clarity, seeing through the false sincerity of power-hungry leftist politicians who are actually Marxist wolves dressed in Democrat sheep’s clothing—for now.
But unless and until these secret Stalinists and sundry other “progressives” can figure out a way to disarm Americans, they cannot execute their historically standard final solution to the “reactionaries-standing-in-the-way-of-utopia” problem. And this is a thorny problem for them, because tens of millions of Americans, disbelieving their deceitful bromides, will stick to their guns no matter what.
Unlike the Armenians, Jews, kulaks and other exterminated peoples, Americans who support the Second Amendment will never be disarmed quietly by government edict prior to meekly boarding a train to a socialist “reeducation” camp. They will not be taken at government gunpoint on a one-way forced march into a desert or a Zyklon-B “delousing shower,” simply because they foolishly agreed to be disarmed by their future oppressors in the dubious name of “public safety.”
If American “progressives” truly intend to disarm the American people, they will have to do it the hard way, by taking their bullets first, one at a time. As the 300 Spartans announced to the vastly larger Persian army at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe!”
Sure, the Police will always be on our side, and never turn on us. The same with the Military. Oopsie.. anyone remembers the Kent State massacre? First the video of the Police Chief, then Kent State video.Students unarmed, shot down by the military Just a reminder for the youngins.
San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within “a generation.”
Lansdowne has gone on record saying: “I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has. I think it’s courageous with the politics involved in this process. [And] I think it’s going to eventually make the country safer.”
He made it clear that it may take “a generation,” but new laws could eventually take all guns off the streets.
Here is a video of the Chief’s interview on the local PBS station, during which he stresses his support for the President’s position on gun control.
San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne talks to KPBS about his support of gun laws. “I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has,” Lansdowne says. Read more: KPBS
On the face of it, this does not appear to be a big story. What is important is the continuing effort to limit State’s Rights as well as our own. Forget privacy and Patient Doctor privilege. I see a more ominous future in the DEA’s march. Beware of the push for Mental Health evaluation before purchasing guns as has been suggested. Has any one ever been given a prescription for Valium when under a lot of stress? In fact, one in nine has seeked counseling some time in their life. Keep your eye out on this trojan horse and gun control.
The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking to block the Drug Enforcement Administration from obtaining prescription records without a warrant in Oregon.
The state of Oregon filed suit against the DEA last year after the agency sought to access the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), a database of prescription records for certain drugs. The ACLU and its Oregon affiliate hope to join the lawsuit on behalf of patients and doctors.
“Oregon law and the U.S. Constitution clearly require the DEA to get a warrant just like any other law enforcement agency,” David Fidanque of the ACLU of Oregon said. “The ACLU opposed the creation of the Oregon prescription database precisely because we were concerned about protecting the privacy of patients and doctors who have done nothing wrong. The Legislature agreed to add the search warrant requirement to partially address that concern.
In seeking to join the lawsuit on Saturday, the ACLU said the DEA’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The group argued that patients and physicians in Oregon have a “reasonable expectations of privacy in their prescription records,” and were protected from unreasonable searches. H/T: Raw Story (http://s.tt/1z0nS)
While I have been wearing my tin foil proudly these past couple of days, and of course have received the expected response, lets take a trip down the rabbit hole one more time. Humor me. We know that Obama has his secret “kill list” that no one is able to explain how one gets on it, or who he selects, but what the heck. It could never happen here.
Published on Mar 9, 2012– Have we heard back yet? Nothing yet!
FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
Pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Holder described the legal justification for assassination, Mueller, who was attending a hearing on his agency’s budget, did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.
“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting. Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”
“I’m going to defer Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/mueller-have-to-check-with-holder-…
Girls Just Wanna Have Guns goal is to motivate women all over the world to prepare themselves for any threat they may encounter.
Whether the weapon of choice is a gun, tazer, knife, spear, pencil or some form of martial arts, the most important thing is that women arm themselves with the right attitude and skills necessary to effectively and efficiently turn from prey to formidable defender.
Raw Story 
