Read the Declaration of Independence!

I believe everyone should read and understand the Declaration of Independence.

Being one of the documents which is still referred to to establish our current rights and the rights of our fore-fathers, everyone should know what it says.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina: William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York: William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William Whipple
Massachusetts: Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone needs to read and Understand how this applied and applies to the past, today, and the future.

Do you know your Bill of Rights?

OK, I have noticed that people do not know their Bill of Rights. Do you? I am going to focus on the original 10 which are the original Bill of Rights which had to be added before certain Founding Father required to be added before thy would sign our Constitution.

Here you go:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II 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.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Did you see anything you didn't know? Have you ever seen yourself not be allowed these rights? I believe this should be taught and memorized by school children across our nation, along with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

I am usually against passing of new laws when they overlap laws already established that are not but should be enforced, however, here is something I believe should be required by law. Make it mandatory for students to memorize and recite the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

I can't help it.

Here is what I cannot help. I cannot help myself when I find a story so good all I can think to do is copy it and post it here.

Lets cover the bases here. This has been taken without permission from the NRA ILA.
Copied on Friday, June 20th, 2008 at 10:47pm from URL http://www.nranews.com/article.aspx?article=88

-------------------------------------------------------
If you ever needed proof that the media ignore or suppress stories that dont fit their anti-gun agenda, here it is...

M E D I A B I A S

by Marshall Lewin

If you ever needed proof that the media ignore or suppress stories that don't fit their anti-gun agenda, here it is.

When the so-called "mainstream" media completely ignore an important firearm study by the FBI, there's got to be a good reason-doesn't there?

Forget the old New York Times slogan "All the News that's Fit to Print." When it comes to the conflict between your firearms, your freedom and the media's bias against both, their slogan ought to be "Only the News that Fits, We Print."

How else could the national establishment media outlets -- right down to the last one -- have completely ignored a recently released FBI report that demolishes many of the anti-gun articles of faith that they've printed and parroted without question or conscience for years?

The 176-page report is titled "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers."

Although it was written by three of the FBI's most respected researchers -- recipients of the University of Virginia's Jefferson Award for Research -- and although it represents the culmination of more than 15 years of inquiry into violence against law enforcement officers, the report was received by the media with abject silence.

Why? Maybe because, among other things, the FBI report shows that many of the media's banal bromides regarding guns and crime are false:

• 
  Criminals do not get their guns through gun shows.
  
• Criminals do not find "loopholes" in the law through which they get their guns.
  
• Anti-gun laws do not stop criminals from getting guns; in fact, they don't even appear to slow criminals down.
  

15 Years of FBI Research ... Ignored

The FBI has collected data on law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty since 1945, and in recent decades has made increasing efforts to analyze the data and glean lessons from it.

To that end, in 1992 the FBI released "Killed in the Line of Duty," a three-year study of 51 cases in which 50 offenders killed 54 law enforcement officers.

In each case, investigators collected all kinds of information on the incident itself. They interviewed the fallen officers' colleagues, their supervisors and the homicide investigators assigned to their murders.

They interviewed the law officers' killers. And to make sure those interviews wouldn't be tainted, they limited the cases they selected for study to those in which the offenders had exhausted all appeals.

Although the 1992 study was well received by the law enforcement community -- indeed, one sheriff gave it credit for saving the life of one of his deputies -- many felt that it was lacking in one dimension: the point of view of the officers who were killed.

So the FBI opened a new line of inquiry, this time analyzing cases in which law officers had been seriously assaulted, but not killed.

In another three-year study, the researchers examined 40 incidents (out of 625 submitted for review) that involved 52 victim officers and 42 offenders (nine cases involved multiple victims, and three involved multiple offenders).

As in the previous study, to ensure the quality of the information obtained, investigators granted complete anonymity to the victim officers, their departments and the offenders. The resulting monograph, titled "In the Line of Fire," was released in 1997.

For the third and final research report, "Violent Encounters," the FBI analysts culled 40 incidents involving 43 offenders and 50 officers froma pool of approximately 800 case submitted for consideration by agencies across the country.

Again, the victim officers and offenders were interviewed in depth. Again, extensive information was collected from the crime scenes and case files for each incident. And again, anonymity was guaranteed to all parties.

In this study, however, researchers considered additional questions, including firearm use; marksmanship training and practice; the sources of criminals' firearms; the ages at which criminals began carrying firearms; when and how they carried; prior involvement in shootings; and so on.

The "Gun Show" Charade

You'd never know it to hear the so-called "mainstream" media tell the tale, but this new FBI report shows that what the media have been saying for years about gun shows, so-called "loopholes" and the sources of criminals' firearms has been false.

A few quotes from the report here are instructive:

"[T]he federal government has passed many laws to restrict and limit firearm purchases. The offenders in this research, however, stated that none of these laws or statutes deterred them."

"Of the 33 handguns used to assault the officers who participated in the current study, 32 (97 percent) were obtained illegally. Eighteen of these were purchased or traded from other [criminals]; six were obtained during burglaries; four were taken from the victim officers during the incidents of examination; two were stolen during larcenies; one was stolen during a homicide; and one was illegally purchased from a firearm dealer in a store (straw purchase by a female associate). "None of the rifles, shotguns or handguns connected with this study were obtained from gun shows or related activities."

Indeed, while anti-gun groups and the media wring their hands, complain about "lax laws" and claim that criminals obtain firearms by exploiting deficiencies in current law, the convicted criminals interviewed for this most recent study made it clear that:

a) At the time of the incident under investigation, they were already prohibited from purchasing firearms because of criminal convictions, illicit activity, underage status and other disqualifying factors; and

b) Those disqualifying conditions didn't make a bit of difference, since the criminals didn't, and wouldn't, attempt to obtain firearms through conventional sources.

Again, some passages from the most recent FBI report sum it up succinctly:

"Thirteen of the 43 offenders readily admitted membership in street gangs connected with drug trafficking. They stated that they freely exchanged firearms within the gang and viewed them as a necessary tool not only for their criminal activities, but also for protecting their territories. None of these particular gang members obtained their weapons legally. Generally, they obtained the firearms by illegal street purchase, trade, swapping on the street, or as the proceeds of theft, such as burglaries and larcenies. Four officers were assaulted with handguns taken from them."

One of the authors of the most recent study, Edward F. Davis of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that not one of the criminals who attacked police officers was "hindered by any law-federal, state or local-that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Indeed, as one of the criminals interviewed for "Violent Encounters" explained:

"I never gave a [expletive] about the gun laws that are on the books ... I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold and picked up a gun, ever. Because I'm a felon, I couldn't pass a background check ... That's just common sense, and I think most felons know that. I'm not going to pass a background check, and I'm not even going to try. Why? Because I can break into Joe Blow's house down the road here ... where it was relatively likely they were gonna have a piece and search the [expletive] from top to bottom until you found your gun."

When investigators asked this same offender how hard it would be to illegally buy a gun on the street, he replied:

"Sure, the black market, quote, unquote. You can get everything from a cheap little .22-caliber ... to a .50-caliber Desert Eagle that retails for twenty-two hundred bucks. You can find everything in between ... whatever you want to get ahold of."

Another offender told FBI investigators:

"No, we ain't going to no store to buy [guns]. I mean, you know, you got everybody out there doing their thing as far as being a criminal. You got guys out there that sell drugs. Guys out there that do burglaries and all that stuff. So, there is some gun sellers out there ... it's almost easy as being able to find drugs."

"Almost as easy as being able to find drugs."

Consider for a moment exactly what that means.

The drugs to which the criminal was referring are completely illegal. They're outlawed throughout the u.s. under numerous federal and state laws that impose stiff, mandatory sentences for distribution, and in many cases simple possession.

Thus, if anything, illegal drugs should be harder to obtain than firearms -- not easier. But they're not.

So even if firearms were one day outlawed completely -- as narcotics currently are -- criminals could still get them as easily as a dime bag.

By refusing to admit that, by refusing to publish the truth that FBI researchers spent 15 years to uncover, the national media don't just divert attention away from the real problems and allow them to grow worse.

They also diminish our liberty and dishonor the brave men and women in blue whose sacrifices served as the reason for this research-and who gave their lives to protect our families and our freedom.

That's a disgrace.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I invite everyone to Google "NRA NEWS" and look around. If you're on the fence regarding guns and their impact on society and crime read what is there. If you still are not convinced, check out a non-NRA related book(sp) by John Lott titled "More Guns, Less Crime".

Cheers

If you think I was wrong...

My prior post explained how in a older, but now removed web page of the Soros group discussed using felons to vote to increase chances of Obama winning the Presidential election. Well, here is a story which broke after my post.

Here you go. Someone is pushing this agenda. I hope they fail.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post
Groups Push to Restore Va. Felons' Voting Rights

By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; B01

RICHMOND -- Civic and social organizations are teaming with Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to try to add thousands of nonviolent offenders to the voting rolls in time for the November election, a move that has angered Republicans who say the effort is designed to help Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Under Virginia's constitution, people convicted of a felony automatically lose their right to vote for life, which has resulted in an estimated 300,000 residents being disenfranchised, even though they are not in prison.

But a Virginia governor can restore a felon's voting rights. Under a process set up by former governor Mark R. Warner (D) , felons convicted of nonviolent crimes can apply to have their voting rights restored if they have a clean record for three years after their sentence has been completed. People convicted of violent felonies, which in Virginia includes selling drugs, have to wait five years.

Earlier this year, Kaine (D) promised that his administration would expedite a review of applications from nonviolent felons who submit their papers by Aug. 1.

The former inmates would be able to register in time to vote in the November presidential contest between Obama (Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee. The felons also would get their rights back to sit on a jury and hold public office.

"The whole name of the game is once they get out and once they serve their time and they have demonstrated they want to get into mainstream society and be good citizens, it's just fundamental to that, they have their civil rights restored," said Bernard Henderson, deputy secretary of the commonwealth, whose office is charged with processing the applications.

Only Virginia and Kentucky require an act of the governor to restore voting rights to felons. The vast majority of states, including Maryland, automatically restore voting rights after a sentence is completed. The District allows felons to vote upon release from prison. Maine and Vermont even allow felons to vote from jail.

The Kaine administration's efforts come as a coalition of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP, have launched an ambitious drive to get convicted felons information on how they can apply to have their voting rights restored.

The groups have taken out newspaper ads, spread the word through churches and gone door to door, urging felons to apply to Kaine.

"A lot of felons operate under the miscomprehension that loss of their voting rights is permanent, so what we are doing, is saying, 'No, no, no, there is a way,' " said Gwinnett Hagens, executive director of Democracy South, a Virginia Beach social justice organization that is reaching out to tens of thousands of unregistered voters in Hampton Roads.

Henderson isn't sure how many applications to expect but said, "It is going to be a challenge for us if we get absolutely swamped, but we will divert staff to do this."

Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia branch of the ACLU, and other activists say the campaign to register more felons is a civil rights issue, not a political one.

"Virginia's situation is extremely punitive, and we are working within the system to get as many folks as possible their rights restored," said Adisa Muse, director of the Virginia Voter Restoration Project.

Although they don't dispute Kaine's authority to grant pardons and clemency to criminals, some GOP legislators are skeptical of the efforts this year to get felons onto the voting rolls.

"I don' t know a lot of young Republicans who end up being felons," said Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah). "Clearly the groups that are soliciting these felons to get their rights restored are predisposed to be in support of Obama, and I am sure this registration effort is designed to help their candidate."

The effort comes as Obama, who views Virginia as a key battleground state this fall, is trying to register tens of thousands of new voters in the state this summer.

Some political strategists say former inmates are the largest block of unregistered voters over age 18 in Virginia. The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group that supports criminal justice reform, estimates that 20 percent of Virginia's black population is ineligible to vote because they are in prison or have a past felony conviction.

Amy Brundage, an Obama spokeswoman, said there is "no organized effort to target ex-offenders" in Virginia. But some Obama workers are providing information to felons about how they can get their rights restored.

"If you are in areas where there are large numbers of unregistered voters, one of the reasons you see that is they are ineligible because of felony convictions," said Kristin Szakos, co-chairman of Charlottesville Area Obama Volunteers, adding that canvassers carry "restoration of rights" forms.

Kaine, one of Obama's national co-chairmen, maintains that his decision to quickly process the applications this year has nothing to do with the presidential election.

"We follow the same basic protocol for nonviolent individuals who have been finished with whatever their sentence," said Kaine, noting that Warner restored voting rights for about 3,500 nonviolent offenders when he was governor.

Del. William R. Janis (R-Goochland) said he thinks the "election is clouding every decision the governor is making."

"There shouldn't be a wholesale, automatic restoration of voting rights to a class of felons for the sole purpose of swelling the voting rolls prior to the November elections," Janis said.

But Henderson, who said he is so far receiving only about 35 applications each week, notes that many of the applications come from felons seeking to have their gun rights restored. A court, not the governor, has to restore that right, but many judges want felons to first get their voting rights back.

Gun owners are considered a vital part of the GOP base in Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if you thought I was mining for BS to post, here is proof I was just reporting what I had found.

Be afraid people, be very afraid.

Intent and Actions

Earned Loss of Rights and Liberty

I am a firm believer that we all know ourselves and decide to undertake certain actions, or said another way, we decide how we are going to live everyday. I know I am not going to commit a crime when I wake up, as also I know I am not going to commit a crime in the future. How can I say this? Easily.

I may not have what you have, but I also do not want it. OK, there is theft, and I am not tempted. I have personally held and had over $20,000.00 in my hands, and I knew who it belonged to, and who it was from. Never did I fail in protecting my friends interest, nor the involved parties.

I may dislike you, but unless you attack me and I fear my or my families safety, you are safe around me. I know this as fact in my life. I will defend myself and those around me. I have taken oaths my entire life to do for the good of all through treating each other right. You do need to fear me if you break our laws. I, as well as most others will call the police, or deal with you. This is fair, as well as protected under the law. As long as I do not violate your rights, I am fine.

I also will never betray my country or its people, and hate anyone who would.

Why am I saying this? Because, some in our nation wake up with the intent on hurting you, robbing you, betraying you, and with no regard for anyone but themselves. Those who are deemed as one of these unwanted, untrusted people have shown they cannot handle our world.

In courts they are labeled felons. Felon is a label which is earned. You do not just become one, nor are you suddenly made one. It is a label only by ones actions does one deserve to wear it.

So, part of our punishment for those deemed felons is the revocation of the right to vote. This is only fair. Now, think honestly, do you want every criminal that is a felon to decide your future? They already did something so bad that the courts sent them to prison, and stripped them from that point forth of many of the rights you and I enjoy every day. These are good things for all of us whom do not want to be a victim to their disregard for our own rights.

I support this. Hell, it should scare the hell out of anyone who cares about those around them if the idea a rapist could go buy a gun without any checks. Imagine your true and worthy fear, and then empower these people to do to you what they please. Would you be safe? How about your loved ones and friends.

So, there are people who want to restore these and other rights to felons. I see them as either naive or with perhaps ill will to those of us enjoying our lives as we live them. You decide. Vocal supporters of many democrat presidential candidates, Soros had the following to say. This is from a cashed file online posted originally by Open Society Institute.

Page Link
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:UOjpCDYcQCcJ:www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/events/disenfranchise_20060620/summary+How+many+felons+in+US&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
Copied on June 17th, 2008 from the above link. No items were changed.

The following is a summary of the forum "Felon Disenfranchisement: Costs and Consequences," held at the Open Society Institute's New York office on June 20, 2006.

Moderator Kirsten Levingston, director of the Criminal Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, began by noting the following statistics:

• 
  5.3 million people in the United States are denied the right to vote because of felony conviction.
• 
  Nearly 600,000 veterans are denied the right to vote.
  
• Thirteen percent of African American men cannot vote due to a felony conviction.
  
• Eighty percent of those polled in a national survery supported restoring voting rights for people who have completed a felony sentence.
  
• Five states still permanently disenfranchise people who have been convicted of a felony unless the government approves restoring an individual's right.
  

Levingston asked author Sasha Abramsky how he became interested in the topic of his book, CONNED: How Millions Went to Prison, Lost the Vote and Helped Send George W. Bush to the White House (The New Press). Forty or fifty years ago, Abramsky said, felon disenfranchisement wasn't a big practical question; there simply weren't that many people in prison. Today, over two million people are incarcerated in the United States, while approximately seven million are involved in the criminal justice system at any one time. What happens, he wondered, when you remove that many people from the voting process? What does it mean when you have very close election victories by conservative candidates?

Levingston then asked Jeff Manza, co-author of the book Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Society (Oxford University Press), about the practical implications of felon disenfranchisement. Using Department of Justice demographic information, Manza said, he was able to estimate how many felons would have voted and how they would have voted. Evidence indicated that in a number of close races, the Republican winner might well have lost had all citizens been allowed to vote.

Monifa Bandele, field director of the Right to Vote Campaign, discussed how felon disenfranchisement has affected people in the communities she works with. Bandele has observed three levels of impact:

• 
  the family: if heads of households vote, their children and other relatives are more likely to vote;
  
• the community: these groups are bypassed by politicians if residents don't or can't vote;
  
• the macro-level: if millions of people are blocked from voting, their demographic becomes less important politically.

Joseph "Jazz" Hayden remarked on the status of his lawsuit, Hayden v. Pataki, and what motivated him to file it. Only Maine and Vermont allow prisoners to vote, Hayden said, but "since we are all citizens of the United States, once you commit a crime you do not cease to be a citizen." The contradiction was so glaring, he said, it had to be addressed. In 2000, he filed a class-action lawsuit on grounds that the Voting Rights Act is being violated and that this in turn dilutes and weakens the community vote.

After 11 months, the lawsuit had a hearing. The court decided against the prisoners' claims. Lawyers are considering whether to go to the Supreme Court, but this is unlikely given the present conservative slant of that body, Hayden said.

Levingston asked Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, about the impact of disenfranchisement at the jail level, where people haven't been convicted of a crime. Mauer stated that there are approximetely 700,000 inmates around the country who haven't yet had a trial, or who were convicted of a misdemeanor. They are eligible to vote but likely will not, Mauer said. They are unaware they have the right, and prison staff are unlikely to make arrangements for them to vote.

Abramsky addressed the perception that formerly incarcerated people are not interested in getting the right to vote. Conservatives are often adamant, he said, that felons do not want to vote. As part of his research Abramsky spoke with convicted felons, most of whom expressed a desire to vote. While conservatives claim that this population, if allowed to vote, would form large criminal voting blocks, Abramsky said that what they really want is to have a say in policies that affect them, such as those regarding schools, tax policies, and war.

Manza polled Americans about whether they thought people with felony convictions should be allowed to vote. He found two trends in public opinion. Over the last 40 years Americans have shown increased willingness to punish criminal offenders more harshly. Yet Americans have become much more supportive of civil rights and civil liberties for all groups, including unpopular ones. Manza's study found that Americans support restoring the right to vote for everyone except for current prison inmates (only about a third support this).

Levingston asked Hayden about his comparison of the felon disenfranchisement issue with "Juneteenth," referring to the disconnect between abolition and the prolonged practice of slavery in some parts of the country. Just as slaves were not made aware that they were free long after emancipation, one of the biggest obstacles to restoring people's right to vote is that they are unaware of the laws or of the process required to restore voting rights. There are possibly millions in the country who are eligible to vote but do not excercise that right because they have not been notified, Hayden said.

Mauer addressed the international implications of the issue. As with the death penalty, the United States is by far the exception with regard to the practices of the rest of industrialized world, he said. But Mauer pointed to a few encouraging developments: for example, a group of organizations has called on the UN Human Rights Committee to confront the United States regarding felon disenfranchisement.

Some encouraging news has emerged in the United States, Bandele said, citing three areas:
Litigation: several lawsuits have challenged states' laws that prevent people from voting.
Push for policy change: public education is increasing awareness so that the public will put pressure on elected officials to change the laws.

Compliance: 5.3 million people are legally disenfranchised; that number doubles when we talk about noncompliance in states where people are allowed to vote but essentially prevented from doing so because they are asked to present nonexistent documents, or are incorrectly told they do not have the right, or where there is widespread ignorance of the laws even among elections administrators. For example, Bandele noted developments in New York State. Systematically, she said, election boards were not providing correct information regarding voting rights. This has been corrected through better education and information.

Levingston asked Abramsky how those in power have reacted to the ease with which people lose the right to vote. In some states there is a good-faith effort to get people to vote when they've finished their sentences, he said. In others, "there is absolutely no momentum toward reenfranchisement." For example, Mississippi has a very efficient disenfranchisement process, Abramsky said. When convicted of a qualified felony (not all felonies result in disenfranchisement), the individual is immediately removed from the voter rolls. Mississippi claims to have a reenfranchisement process, which is as follows: An individual must go to his or her state representative and convince them to personally author a bill reenfranchising that individual. Both houses of the legislature must then be convinced to pass the bill, and the governor has to sign it. This means that every year, only 10 to 12 people have been reenfranchised in Mississippi, while at the same time thousands are being disenfranchised.
In states like this there is a "secondary disenfranchisement": there is no reenfranchisement process comparable to the massive disenfranchisement efforts. Even though in theory people can vote, Abramsky said, in practice it is a diminution of their voting rights.

--------------------------------------

Why would an article like this be removed from your site if you believed in it enough to post it, and not only post it but offer Multimedia links to it originally? This was not something which accidentally ended up on line.

The next question would be why is it gone? You decide.

Felons do not deserve the right to vote, no more than they deserve the right to own guns. This was lost. Not only lost, but willfully given away one day when they awoke and decided to go and commit a crime. Which crime was it? Murder, Rape, or something worse?

Think about that.

Help our Warriors out!

Here is a great way to help the Wounded Warrior Project. Enter for a chance to win this custom Jeep.

Go to Warrior Jeep to find out how to win and help others!

Boycott Toronto!!!!

OK everyone, it time to get the word out. Toronto needs to feel what happens when all gun owners ban travel to a city.

To learn more, go to http://www.torontothebad.com/ .

Here is what the Mayor of Toronto has to say about America Gun Owners.

• About American Firearms Owners
  
• The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto,
  ... this should come as no surprise, there’s a complete lack of common sense in the US and its easier for a Canadian to drive down to a place like Ohio and go to a gun show and bring it back in.
  
• "It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto,"
  
• There’s a heck of a lot of Americans who believe in common sense gun control. Maybe they’ll wake up and discover that they’re exporting literal death to the streets of Toronto and other Canadian cities.
  
• The law must be changed and we have to continue to work with American mayors to stop the flow of guns across the border into Canada,
  
• There are two sources: They're from Canada and the United States. The Canadian guns sometimes are from registered gun owners, as we sadly saw last week, often are from guns stolen from so-called collectors. And it's time to close those loopholes. And we must be much more aggressive to stop the guns coming from the United States.
  
• We've got ongoing work with U.S. jurisdictions and that's important as something we can do. We've ask our legal department to explore every avenue of what we can do to get at the supply of guns and ammunition.
  
• We need to take a strong stand about it and make it a big issue between Canada and the US so the Americans choose to make a different choice about it.
  
• I’ve lived in the States, I went to university in the States and I don’t think there’s a place for guns there either...

This was so good, it needed to be added here...

In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311

Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."

Anticipating the Supreme Court's expected late June decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which will decide the constitutionality of a D.C. law restricting gun-ownership rights, many analysts have turned to the Founders' writings in an effort to understand the Second Amendment. What analysts need to do -- recognizing that language and word usage change over time -- is turn to America's first dictionary.

The Second Amendment states simply, "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."

The Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute "violate[d] the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.

Known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.

"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "Right" was "just claim; immunity; privilege." "All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote.

Thus in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and individuals have "rights."

"Keep" was defined as "To hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with ... To have in custody for security or preservation"; "Bear" as "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; and "Arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body."

Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " ... to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."

"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.

What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State?"

"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite";

"Security" as "protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind ... " and "Free" as "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."

"State" was defined as "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government ... ." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire body politic.

During most of our history an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.

It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right" would mean governmental power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include prohibition.

The Founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy to understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.

Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.
----------------------------
Now that is something that I cannot see anyone argue, unless they change the definition of our words.

Cowards in the cradle of our nation?

Dear God, I pray that you will look over those so overcome by fear that they do nothing against the criminals of our country. Amen.

OK people, I was reading newspapers online from all across our East Coast. I saw more stories of crime than good. I have never seen such a thing. Do they not care about their or others safety? Are they so beaten down that they sit home afraid every night? What creates cowards in this nation so wide spread that criminals overtake our states?

Is it cowards, or bad laws that prevent people from doing good for themselves and others?

Why, and really I ask, why is it in so called Blue states crime rates are higher than so called Red states? I wish I knew the answer.

When people of our nation quit looking for the easy way out and run from tough times, we might see the nation our founding father envisioned.

I do not give a shit how you vote, but if you vote as a pussy and allow bad things to grow, you are a fool. Put people in office who will actually make a difference. Screw party lines if your Blue option is a wuss, and the same for those Reds out there.

I gave 10 (ten) years of my life chasing shit bag criminals. I know I made a difference. In saying that I challenge you to do something.

Start giving a shit and doing shit and quit being a piece of shit!!!!!!

Second Amendment is not about weapons,

Second Amendment is not about weapons, but about basic right of self-defense
June 2, 2008
Larry Goodson

The letter in Wednesday's edition, "Restrict weapons," is yet another display of a well-intentioned person who has absolutely no knowledge of firearms or facts.

She refers to the Second Amendment as giving guns to too many irresponsible people. I guess, and primarily due to the major media historically having an anti-gun agenda and choosing to not report on them, she is unaware of the 2.5 million times each year in our country that an average person stops a crime due to the mere presence of a gun, and in most cases not firing it.

Does she also suggest that too many people are abusing some of the other amendments, such as the right of free speech and religion because of all the hate mongers and race baiters we are exposed to daily?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is primarily about self-defense, which is a far greater right than even that bestowed by the First Amendment. Studies and statistics show that if more good people had guns, there would be far less crime.

If our society could effectively deal with such core issues as the glorification of violence in music, movies, the Internet and video games, a turnstile justice system that coddles criminals, an education system that no longer teaches values and respect, and the lack of parenting, there would no longer be a "gun problem," as there was none when I was growing up. I will fight for my constitutional right of self-defense.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-pbmail805pnjun02,0,360095.story

Here is our choice...

Regardless of what happens between Obama and Clinton, here is the only choice for 2nd Amendment Rights.

John McCain at the NRA Annual Meeting in Kentucky.

Wow, in the New York Times...

Normally major newspapers and media sources ignore news involving non-criminal use of handguns. Swap out the officer for any Concealed Weapons Permit holder, and you will understand my points made repeatedly here.
----------------------------

At His Door, Officer Kills Armed Man
By JENNIFER 8. LEE and JASON GRANT
Published: June 2, 2008
The NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/nyregion/02shooting.html?ref=nyregion

An off-duty police officer fatally shot a man who pulled a gun on the officer’s wife and 3-year-old daughter outside the door of their Bronx apartment, the police said on Sunday.

The confrontation began when the officer’s wife and daughter left the elevator to go to their third-floor apartment at 314 East 201st Street in Bedford Park just before midnight on Saturday.

A man who had been in the elevator with them followed them out and pointed a pistol at them, the police said. The woman’s screams alerted her husband, identified as Officer Luis Perez, who ran into the hall with a gun.

Shots were fired as the man, whom the police identified as Carlos Rios, 47, of Amsterdam Avenue in Upper Manhattan, ran down the stairs into the lobby, witnesses and the police said. He was hit in the shoulder, the police said.

According to a witness, Mr. Rios was found under a minivan outside the building and medics tried to revive him on the sidewalk. He was taken to Montefiore Medical Center, where he was declared dead at 12:26 a.m.

The police said that a silver automatic pistol was recovered and that Mr. Rios had an arrest record. They did not give details.

Peter Girvan, 42, an administrator at Fordham University who also lives on the third floor, said that shortly before midnight he heard a woman yelling for help in Spanish. He looked through the peephole of his apartment door and saw a woman in a black jogging suit giving “bloodcurdling” screams. “She was screaming ‘Ayudame! Ayudame!’” he said.

He said he then saw Mr. Rios dart past his door and run down the stairs. Mr. Girvan said he heard a single shot followed by a rapid sequence of five shots. After a minute or so, Mr. Girvan said, he walked into the hallway and saw Officer Perez, dressed only in boxer shorts, coming up the stairs with his gun.

The police said that the pistol the officer used was not his department-issued weapon.

Another neighbor, Ken Ferrara, 53, who teaches learning-disabled children and is a tai chi instructor, said he heard Mr. Perez identify himself as a police officer. He added, “I believe it was the perpetrator who fired the shot as he was running down the stairs, and then the officer returned fire.”

Jason Rodriguez, 23, who lives on the first floor, also said that he heard a single shot followed by five rapid shots. “I went to my hallway and all I saw was gun smoke,” he said. “It had just happened. I was devastated.”

Hours after the shooting, a trail of blood could be seen from the first floor out to the street.

The neighborhood is known as a place where many police officers live, residents said. Blanca Farmer, 52, the building’s superintendent, said that Officer Perez was an active and helpful neighbor. She said he had passed his business card to other tenants and told them: “If there is trouble in the building, call the 52nd Precinct. Don’t take the law into your own hands.”
-----------------------------------------
OK, I bolded one thing which is also usually omitted in a story regarding LAWFUL self defense shootings across this country. The criminal in this story, and almost all others like this, have a prior record.

I do disagree with one major part of this story. It is the final line of this story. "Don't take the law into your own hands."

Do a test where ever you may live. Have a stopwatch available. Call 911. Now, imagine how many shots can and could be fired by a criminal. Also, figure out how many shots you could fire to save you, your family, or others before the police arrive.

Taking your own life and the self defense of such into your own hands in most states is actually protected by law. Did you know that? There are laws in place to protect those whom have had to defend themselves or others. SO, taking the law into your own hands is not only something I advise, but support. If we could not do this, why do they have Citizens Arrest powers also in the laws?

In addition to all of this, you must realize and understand that the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that the police DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT YOU!!!!!! Bet most of you did not know that one.

Cheers,

Packing.org died, but now....

If you want to learn more about Concealed Carry, you can now go to USA CARRY!
http://www.usacarry.com/

Something I have noticed.....

I reread my tagline on the top of my blog. I see that I refer to my thughts as random, however, the more that I write here, the more I notice that I keep to the same themes again and again.

Right To Carry

This is one of my favorite rights bestowed upon all of us via the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. When I was younger I thought the NRA was just a bunch of country bumpkins, but after living life and working very close to Law Enforcement, I see that the 2nd Amendment is the one which provides us the ability to Speak Freely under the 1st Amendment, also the right to practice our religions, and many other things. Notice the 2nd Amendment is towards the top, not the bottom.

I have spent time reading the words of our Founding Fathers and they all make it very clear that they feared and had seen through history that dictators and fascists can easily rise to power and take away all of our freedoms by whim and decree. Look to the post just prior to this one which shows what happens when the people are stripped of their arms.

If you do not think that an evil person can rise to power on the shoulders of a minority, look to Hitler. Only 30% of Germany supported him, and he took over the country.

If we look to the cities where guns are restricted or banned, look at the crime that is evident. What is the purpose of passing a law that only law abiding citizens will follow? Crime is not deterred by laws, but by punishment. If we lock up a criminal, can the commit crimes against society? NO. Look also to the Civil Rights violations which happen in these cities. The police operate above the law with blessing from those in power. If you disagree with them, you will be put down by threats, attacks, arrest, and lies. Does that sound like freedom?

What makes good people good? Is it ethics? Morals? Education? Religion? What is it that makes most people good people? Is it Laws? None of these holds power over all of these. It is people seeking freedom. Freedom from fear, freedom from crime, freedom from tyranny. When we all realize that no matter how many laws are passed, there will be crime and injustice.

In realizing that crime and injustice will always exist, we realize that we ourselves, or better said, we the people must defend each others ability to enjoy freedom. I may not agree with everyone, nor should I, but your freedoms are granted to all of us. You may argue this point, but that is a freedom you enjoy.

We are lucky to live here. We need the right to bear arms. Without that, we will lose our freedoms with no way to resist. This is completely summed up by the following question.

Is our government here to serve us, or are we here to serve the government?

Gun Bans in History

1911, Turkey establishes gun control.
Between 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1929, the Soviet Union establishes gun control.
20 million plus dissidents (a governments term for someone who does not think along party lines) unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1935 China establishes gun control.
Between 1935 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,were rounded up and exterminated.
-------------------------------------------------------
1938 Germany establishes gun control.
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1956 Cambodia established gun control.
One million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1964 Guatemala established gun control.
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1970 Uganda established gun control.
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
The number of defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.................56 million. And that's only the one we have records for!

Praire Rats do not need protection....

Feds plan to study prairie dogs for possible endangered status
By GARY HARMON
The Daily Sentinel

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

A week after a Colorado state agency refused to ban shooting white-tailed prairie dogs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Tuesday it will study the rodent to determine if it should be protected as an endangered species.

The decision was a vindication of efforts frustrated in 2004 to have the prairie dog protected, said Josh Pollock, conservation director for the Center for Native Ecosystems, who called the decision a “victory for sound science.”

The decision to study the white-tailed prairie dog population “opens a valuable opportunity for the scientific community to study for two years and find out what kind of population is out there in the ground.”

The decision to study the white-tailed prairie dog won’t have any effect on the Colorado Wildlife Commission’s decision last week to reject a proposed ban on prairie-dog hunting.

“Unfortunately, the white-tailed prairie dog is largely unprotected in the places they still live,” and the only federal action that would change that is listing the rodents as an endangered species, Pollock said.

The federal agency’s decision, however, didn’t sit well with Club 20, the Western Slope lobbying and promotional organization.

“We’re more concerned about the decline of the subspecies called the American farmer, which the prairie dog is contributing to,” Club 20 Executive Director Reeves Brown said.

Prairie dogs destroy pasture and damage herds, said Carlyle Currier, a Collbran rancher who said studies by Colorado State University show that cows thrive less in pasture that is infested with prairie dogs than in those without the other rodents.

Eastern Colorado ranchers battled designation of the black-tailed prairie dog as endangered by counting them themselves and finding hundreds of thousands more than were counted by environmental organizations, said Dave Whittlesey, a Delta County bison and elk rancher.
“I think the case will be the same here,” he said.

White-tailed prairie dogs are found across the western half of Wyoming, western Colorado, the eastern portion of Utah, and a small portion of southern Montana.

The white-tailed prairie dog is a stout rodent, 13 to 15 inches long and weighing one to three pounds. It has a short, white-tipped tail, large eyes, a blackish brown cheek patch above and below each eye, and a tan-brown pelt. It’s genetically different from the black-tailed prairie dog, which has a black-tipped tail.

White-tailed prairie dogs are generally found at elevations between 5,000 and 10,000 feet in desert grasslands and shrub grasslands.

Prairie-dog varmint shooting is a “decent part of our business,” said Wes Stout of Gene Taylor’s Sporting Goods in Grand Junction, who noted also that sport shooters like the 90-day period from April to June in which they can’t be hunted on public lands. That allows the animals to maintain their numbers, he said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service will accept comments and information until July 7. Comments can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, or they can be mailed or hand delivered to Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2008-0053; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, Va. 22203.
-------------------------------------------------
What's next? Protection for Feral and Stray Dogs & Cats?
I always get a kick out of people who believe that the world is made out of Rainbows and Puppy's.
Perhaps someday this people will become educated in facts and not emotion.

NRA Certified

In my quest to improve myself and help others, I recently became a Certified Basic Rifle Instructor with the NRA.
I am in the process of getting additional classes I can teach.
I will post each class I can teach here.

Glenn Beck at the NRA Annual Meeting 2008

I can say that I agree with Glenn Beck 90%.
I honestly can say in my own opinion that if we end up with either Obama or Clinton in office, we will see our Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties attacked, removed, stolen, and given a Nanny Police State in their place.
Here is Glenn Beck. Check him out!

Control Criminals NOT Guns

By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Every time there's a highly publicized shooting, out go the cries for stricter gun control laws, and it was no different with the recent murder of Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, in a letter to the state congressional delegation demanding reenactment of the federal assault weapon ban, said, "Passing this legislation will go a long way to protecting those who put their lives on the line every day for us. … There is no excuse to do otherwise."

Gun control laws will not protect us from murderers. We need protection from the criminal justice system politicians have created. Let's look at it.

According to former Philly cop Michael P. Tremoglie's article "Who freed the cop-killers?" for the Philadelphia Daily News (5/8/08), all three murder suspects had extensive criminal records. Levon Warner was sentenced in 1997 to seven and a half to 15 years for robbery, one to five years for possessing an instrument of crime and five to 10 for criminal conspiracy. Howard Cain was convicted in 1996 on four counts of robbery and sentenced to five to 10 years on each count. Eric Floyd was sentenced to five to 10 years in 1995 for robbery, rearrested in 1999 for parole violation and later convicted in 2001 for two robberies. If these criminals had not been released from prison, long before they served out their sentences, officer Liczbinski would be alive today. So what's responsible for his death: guns or a prison and parole system that released these three criminals? Tremoglie cites other examples of criminals, with convictions for violent crimes ranging from robbery and assault to murder, who were paroled and later murdered police officers.

A New York Times study (4/28/06) of the city's 1,662 murders in 2003-2005 found that 90 percent of the murderers had criminal records. A Massachusetts study reported that on average, homicide offenders had been arraigned for nine prior offenses. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that in 1988 in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., over 89 percent of adult murderers had a criminal record as an adult.

A few days after the murder of Liczbinski, Governor Rendell told a news conference, attended by state elected officials and top law enforcement officials, "The time has come for politicians to decide. You have to decide whether you're on their side -- the men and women who wear blue -- or whether you're on the side of the gun lobby." Instead of saying "whether you're on the side of the gun lobby," Rendell should have said "whether you're on the side of the criminal and the courts, prosecutors, prisons and parole boards that cut soft deals with criminals and release them to prey upon police officers and law-abiding citizens."

If there is one clear basic function of government, it's to protect citizens from criminals. When government failure becomes so apparent, as it is in the murder of a police officer, officials seek scapegoats and very often it's the National Rifle Association and others who seek to protect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hear calls for stricter gun control laws when what is really needed is more control over criminals.

There are many third-party liability laws. I think they ought to be applied to members of parole boards who release criminals who turn around and commit violent crimes. As it stands now, people on parole boards who release criminals bear no cost of their decisions. I bet that if members of parole boards were held liable or forced to serve the balance of the sentence of a parolee who goes out and commits more crime, they would pay more attention to the welfare of the community rather than the welfare of a criminal. You say, "Williams, under those conditions, who'd serve on a parole board?" There's something to be said about that.

Before I forget...

I was privy to adding up the true snow totals which were recorded by the Snow Safety Department of Crested Butte Professional Ski Patrol.

The end total was 360.75 inches for the entire winter.

I guess the marketing department did not like this total and added 40 inches to the amounts which guests were told.

I guess all in the world of money 40 inches of fake snow is alright.

Breeding like rabbits.

Prairie dogs are not dogs, nor are they endangered.

So, here in Gunnison County of Colorado, some have decided to try to make Prairie Dogs listed on the endangered species listing with the federal government.

I believe these people are not foolish, but downright stupid.

These animals breed at a rate which no matter how many are shot, there are more being born.

Since man began ranching, they have tried and tried to remove these rats which cause massive damage to pastures.

If they could have completely removed them, they would have done it by now.

The truth is that this is not about protecting these animals, but to make one by one another animal which cannot be hunted in the end goal of ending all hunting all together.

Wake up people. This is an assault on our rights and privileges.

Would Christ Carry a Concealed Weapon?

Would Christ Carry a Concealed Weapon?
By Doug Giles

I was on a talk show the other day defending the Second Amendment and discussing with my host the stupid, unconstitutional and woefully inadequate D.C. gun ban. I made it clear that I am a Christian who is extremely cool (to the point of being giddy) with our right to keep and bear arms.

After we trounced the anti-gun lobby for their goofy, doe-eyed, John Lennon-like “Imagine” solutions to violent crime, we opened up the phone lines for folks to weigh in with their two cents. The first caller was a woman who asked if I thought Jesus would carry a weapon if He were here today, to which I quickly replied, yes, of course He would—especially if He lived in Miami and was driving down I-95 at four o’clock in the morning.

The female caller, being far more spiritual than I am, didn’t think it was funny and went on to make it personal by asking if someone were attacking one of my daughters and I had a gun if I thought Christ would be cool with me killing the felonious freak. I told her that I sure hoped He would because otherwise He’d be terribly disappointed in me and would just have to forgive me. Common sense and primal instinct tell me that the bad guy should die and the good girl should live. Call me carnal.

Of course the holier-than-me caller was aghast that as a Christian I would have no problem whatsoever defending my friends, family, person and possessions with deadly force. Her reason being was that she couldn’t picture Jesus doing it and concluded that because she couldn’t wrap her mind around Him green-lighting the destruction of a demented perp that He certainly wouldn’t and thus I shouldn’t.

When discussing what Christ would do in a given situation, it’s usually good to actually go to the gospels, read them and then draw conclusions. Here’s what I’ve gotten after scouring Scripture a few times:

1. Jesus in His earthly ministry didn’t carry a weapon except the time when He took a whip (a whip! You gotta love it!) and Billy Jack’ed the televangelists out of the temple. He didn’t chide them or write them a strong but tasteful e-mail asking them to please not do that kind of stuff in church.

What did the meek and mild Messiah do? He whipped them. God, I hope you got that on DVD for me to watch when I get to heaven. I wonder if the Christ-is-a-pacifist-wuss-lady can picture sweet Jesus laying the leather to the backs of the marketers who were making His father’s house a place of merchandise.

If Christ were to do that today He’d be thrown in prison, and 99.9% of churches in the USA wouldn’t have Him speak at their annual Hallelujah Aren’t We Fabulous conference because Jesus wouldn’t be behaving very Christ-like.

2. It’s clear from Scripture that Jesus didn’t need weapons because He had at his disposal an angelic host that could flatten armies. I unfortunately don’t have that capability. Nor can I walk through walls or split oceans. Christ had supernatural protection, and His disciples carried swords. I, too, believe that God supernaturally protects me, to some degree, because I should have been dead a long time ago. However, should my guardian angel be napping or busy doing something else other than trying to keep up with me, I’ll be okay, because Smith & Wesson art with me as well.

3. Lastly, in Luke 22:36-38 Christ told his disciples, even though He personally did not pack a weapon, that they, in light of His departure, should get a deadly weapon—namely a sword. Check it out . . .

“And he [Jesus] said to them [His disciples], ‘But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And he was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.’ They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough.’”

Jesus told them—didn’t ask or mildly suggest—but told His buddies to sell their leather jacket if need be and buy a sword. The sword which Christ told his compadres to purchase was not a QVC decorative Claymore to hang on their walls to commemorate the good times they had when Christ was around. The original word used for sword in this text was a large knife used for killing animals and cutting flesh. It was particularly fashioned for short, deadly thrusts in hand-to-hand combat.

Jesus didn’t tell them to carry a whistle, a shofar horn, or a bag of sand to blow in bad guys’ eyes, but a dagger-like sword. A vicious, nasty and deadly weapon not used for cutting vegetables, spreading butter or splitting a bagel but for violently tapping a lung or heart in case of an attack. Now, in a 21st century WWJD context, even though He didn’t personally carry a weapon, what do you think He thinks about His followers defending themselves with deadly force, huh, pacifists?

Snow so far

Just a quick mention on snow here. We are 56" short of 400" total snowfall this year.

The skiing is awesome, and will remain great no matter what weather we get outside of rain.

We are at 4 feet in four days and counting....

Ok, another update. We are now at over four feet in four days, and it is still snowing.

Weather service is still calling for more snow and how much more is any ones guess. I am skiing all day Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

Do not have time to chat about anything else, as I need to get my gear ready for an early wake up of 6 am.

29 more inches

So, another storm has rolled though giving us more snow. With scattered sprinkles of snow from an inch to 7 inches since the big 81 inch dump earlier, we are doing great.

My 11 year old daughter was skiing steep blacks for the first time in powder. We got fifth chair up and first tracks on three runs Saturday.

I may get a chance to Billy Goat around the rocks on Monday, but we will see. Depends on if the wife is willing to be a powder widow for a day or not.

Check out http://www.skicb.com/ for more information.

They are still calling for more snow. 2 to 4 feet more. Here is the video link below. Sweet.
http://www.kjct8.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?clipId1=2072745&at1=Weather&vt1=v&h1=Your+Weather+Webcast&d1=115133&redirUrl=www.kjct8.com&activePane=info&LaunchPageAdTag=homepage&clipFormat=

What a winter so far.

Ok, over two weekends earlier this winter we received 81" of snow. Outstanding.

I have been able to ski the Upper Forest, Lower Forest, and Peel along with the Spellbound Bowl ares for work. In addition to that we are expected not only to ski every knook and crany of the non-extremes, which actually holds sections of skiing which is actually just as hairy as most things found in the extremes.

I knew I loved skiing, but working so close with Ski Patrol has shown me I can do all the things I love to do so much, and get paid well while doing so.

Enough for now. We are expecting a nice storm system to come and give us some more snow.