Consumer Information

Senate Flip Key to Securing Gun Rights

U.S. Capitol Building

The elections are almost upon us, and activist gun owners are looking at the possibility of fundamentally transforming the composition of the U.S. Senate by switching the majority party to the Republicans. While support by individual GOP incumbents and candidates at times runs counter to the interests of Second Amendment advocates, there is no question that, as a whole, the Democrats, with a central component in their platform calling for “strengthening our background check system [and] commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole,” is the party of “gun control.”

U.S. Capitol Building
The capitol is being restored; will gun rights soon follow? Photo courtesy Architect of the Capitol.

Not surprisingly, the gun issue figures prominently in key Senate races. There are six of them Republicans need to capture in order to gain a majority and oust Harry Reid from his position of power.

“Senate control looks tantalizingly close for the GOP, but Democrats still have a fair chance to hold the line,” National Journal advises. Listing the states by order of likelihood of being flipped, the political publication further notes that after the top three, “the GOP appears to have smaller advantages.”

Those six states are Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alaska. While states listed after those may flip, they go from “pure toss-ups” to races favoring the incumbent party.

So what do “gun voters” need to know?

With current Senator John Walsh deciding not to run in Montana, the choice should be an easy one for gun owners, with Republican Steve Daines getting an “A+” grade along with an endorsement from NRA’s Political Victory Fund, and Democrat candidate Amanda Curtis being dismissed with an “F.”  While Big Sky Country has previously been very supportive of Democrats, they were all of the type that passed themselves off as “pro-gun,” and an anti-gun position should not play well with an electorate that values firearms freedoms.

West Virginia pits Republican Shelly Moore Capito, with an “A” grade and NRA-PVF endorsement, against “C” -rated Democrat Natalie Tennant. While Tennant claims “My whole life there has never been a question of my support for the Second Amendment,” evidently her answers on NRA’s questionnaire left plenty. Still, her making a special point of attempting to present her Second Amendment bona fides shows the importance of gun rights in this race.

In South Dakota, former Governor and GOP candidate Mike Rounds is also “A”-rated and endorsed by NRA-PVF. His opponents, Democrat Rick Weiland, and Independent Larry Pressler are each assigned an “F.” While the effects of the vote split are unknown, outside interests and a Democrat ad blitz are forcing the Republicans to spend money where they had anticipated being secure, making committed gun owner involvement crucial.

Louisiana presents a special challenge. Incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu has been given a “D” by NRA-PVF. That said, the race is being hotly contested on the Republican side, with Bill Cassidy getting the endorsement nod and an “A+” grade, while additional GOP candidates Rob Maness and Thomas Clements each earned “AQ” grades based on answering NRA’s questionnaire. The split between the “conservative” Maness and the “establishment” Cassidy will result in a runoff if no candidate gets over 50 percent of the vote, and, per The Washington Times, is “raising questions about whether the tea party insurgency will cost Republicans a winnable seat.”

The race in Arkansas, between “A”-rated and endorsed Republican Tom Cotton and incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor with a “B-” rating, is leaning gun owners’ way largely due to the unpopularity of how national Democrat policies have played out in the state. Still, Pryor’s tepid grade may be enough for some union member gun owners, who are primarily hunters and sport shooters, as opposed to gun rights activists. This looks to be a case where it will pay to emphasize that Gun Owners of America gives the sitting senator a “D.”

Another incumbent Democrat GOA gives a “D” to is Alaska’s Mark Begich, contrasting sharply with NRA-PVF’s baffling “A-” grade. What that effectively does is give Begich cover with gun owners. What it does not do is hold him properly accountable for his votes to confirm anti-gun justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, even though NRA members were promised those votes would be scored. Merely withholding an endorsement hardly seems enough of a political retaliation for those betrayals, particularly considering numerous other votes and positions Begich has taken, like supporting Harry Reid’s “nuclear option,” that should make him unacceptable to any gun owner who cares about his rights.

It’s such confirmation votes, and particularly the dangers they pose to the future of gun rights as recognized by the Supreme Court, that make flipping the Senate to the Republicans of vital interest to all gun owners. Recall that both Heller and McDonald were 5 to 4 decisions, and the addition of just one more anti-gun judge would produce opposite rulings.

“I’ve never seen it this close,” NRA Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris W. Cox declared in a fundraising email. “Every poll shows us within striking distance of knocking anti-gun Senator Harry Reid out of his Majority Leadership position — and replacing him, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin with a pro-Second Amendment majority.

“But it will all come down to just a few percentage points in a handful of races on November 4,” Cox continued. “[Y]our response to this request will decide whether your Second Amendment rights have a fighting chance to survive the final two years of Barack Obama’s presidency. I’m asking YOU to help elect a Congress that will STAND AND FIGHT against Barack Obama’s anti-gun, anti-freedom agenda…”

True enough. That’s why gun owners need to get involved and do more than vote. They need to do everything in their power to make Democrats the minority party in the Senate.

And the Democrats know it. That’s why they’re doing desperate moves, like Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky, unrated by NRA-PVF, meaning she never returned their questionnaire to put what she actually believes in on record. Despite being unwilling to offer anything other than nebulous non-specifics, she’s trying to position herself as a gun supporter by showing off her skeet shooting ability, as if Barack Obama himself hasn’t tried the same ploy.

It’s an old trick. John Kerry pulled that stunt in his 2004 campaign for president, making sure everyone saw him hunting geese, and Bill Clinton did the same thing with ducks. It’s all part of an effort to divide the gun vote, counting on many gun owners and most Americans not knowing where the “sporting purposes” concept used in so many “gun control” edicts originated.

If being proficient with a firearm is all that’s needed to convince some of us that a candidate is “pro-gun,” the Democrats could do worse than running Ruby Ridge FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for office. The important thing to keep in mind is, in every state except for those hopelessly controlled by Democrats, candidates in both parties find it advantageous to appeal to gun voters, as opposed to Demanding Moms. Wherever they enjoy an unchallengeable majority, Democrats drop all pretenses and go after the guns.

It’s past time to end that majority in the United States Senate.

Will you get out and vote this mid-term election day?

[dcodrea]

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (81)

  1. Global warming is just propaganda

    Talk by Nigel Calder, Savile Club, London, 9 Dec. 2008

    © Nigel Calder 2008

    Let me start by mentioning two members of your club, my brother Allan here tonight, and our late father, Ritchie Calder. When Allan was six weeks old a damaged German bomber was about to crash in Surrey. It jettisoned its bombs and one hit our family home. There was a kerfuffle in London when it turned out that the German pilot had in his pocket a British propaganda leaflet produced by our Dad. Had there been a breach of security? Had his house been targeted? No, of course not. It was just a grisly coincidence.

    Ritchie Calder was an ace science reporter, whose scoops included the splitting of the atom and the structure of DNA. But during the Second World War he was director of plans and campaigns in the Political Warfare Executive of the Foreign Office. In plain words, he was making propaganda. He later told me quite a lot about the wartime tradecraft. And now it dismays me to see the very same techniques being used to propagate the myth that we are in the grip of relentless global warming driven by manmade emissions of carbon dioxide.

    Like my Dad before me, I’m a science writer. And I’m a a trained sceptic. As a physics student at Cambridge I was told to mistrust what the professors told me. If the top experts had everything done and dusted, there would be no big discoveries remaining to be made. Luckily the top experts are usually wrong. Surprising discoveries keep coming along. Science thrives

    And I was also groomed as a sceptic as an apprentice journalist. I was told that all governments lie and that anyone who comes to you with a story has an axe to grind. If you want the real stories, you must go out and look for them for yourself.

    So I’ve had 50 years of fun, hunting down the young men and women making the biggest scientific discoveries. The game was to put them on international television long before they won their Nobel Prizes. When telling the public about new wonders of Nature, I often got a lot of flak from the top experts of the time. For example, I was rebuked for reporting that there are big black holes in the sky, that continents drift around the world, that wobbles in the Earth’s orbit set the rhythm of the ice ages, and that the dinosaurs perished when an asteroid or comet hit the Earth. There were always top experts despising the discoveries, all of which are now accepted as correct.

    The dust usually settled on those spats within a few years. But about 12 years ago I reported a new wonder of Nature concerning climate change, which is still rejected by the top experts. So instead of moving on to fascinating new subjects (of which there are plenty) I’ve had to keep hammering away about the same climate story. Try as I may to stick to the science, and steer clear of the politics, there’s no avoiding a propaganda battle. It has corrupted the science to a degree not seen since the Soviet Bloc made the political decision that Western genetics was wrong, and went ahead and ruined their agriculture.

    A discovery that’s not politically correct

    My story was about a discovery in the physics of the weather. To find anything comparable you have to go back to the 18th Century. That was when the postmaster of Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin by name, flew a kite in a thunderstorm. He proved that lightning is just a big electric spark. To be precise, he described how to do the experiment, and let the French try it first. They lived to tell the tale, so Franklin repeated it for himself. A very prudent postmaster.

    In 1996, in Copenhagen, the climate physicist Henrik Svensmark made another discovery just as amazing. He found that the everyday clouds we see in the sky take their orders from the Sun and the stars. I wrote a book about it, called The Manic Sun. Nobody paid much attention, but the scientific evidence went on piling up and last year Henrik and I together published a second book called The Chilling Stars. A second edition, updated, came out this year, and the discovery has also featured in a few TV programmes.

    In a nutshell, atomic particles coming from exploded stars, called cosmic rays, help to make invisible specks floating in the air, on which water vapour condenses to make cloud droplets. When the Sun is most active, magnetically speaking, it repels many of the cosmic rays and there are fewer clouds. During the 20th Century the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength. With fewer cosmic rays, and with fewer low clouds blocking the sunshine, the world warmed up.

    The other disputed discoveries that I mentioned were controversial only among scientists. This new wonder of Nature is not politically correct. A bunch of computer model-makers, using a much more speculative theory, want to say that the global warming is our fault, due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases put into the air by human activity. And they’ve persuaded many politicians that it’s going to get much worse unless we mend our ways.

    During the 20th Century, the world’s average temperature rose by less than one degree Celsius. That’s not at all remarkable compared with other changes of climate over the previous centuries and millennia, and there are two explanations on offer. Despite anything you may hear to the contrary, the cosmic-ray story is fully supported by the evidence of observations and experiments.

    The manmade global warming story has no such support. Quite the opposite. The very mechanism for the supposed greenhouse warming, reinforced by that extra CO2, requires tropical air temperatures to rise faster at high altitudes (6 miles above the ground) than they do lower down. Weather balloons routinely carry thermometers to those heights and beyond. They have shown no such trend over recent decades.

    The glory of science is that in the end the correct story prevails. When my friend Henrik Svensmark’s does, I don’t suppose Al Gore will give back his Nobel peace prize. But what I do foresee is a hundred PhDs in political history and scientific history, as people try to understand how science and public policy got into such a mess. And a large part of their task will be to disentangle the science and the propaganda. Which brings me back to Ritchie Calder, and my comparisons with the wartime propaganda of the 1940s.

    Dirty tricks in the US Senate

    I mentioned leaflets. Billions of them were scattered on German cities and on the front lines. One of the best of these paper weapons, so my Dad told me, was a pamphlet written by a doctor explaining to German troops how to fake illnesses so they’d not have to fight. Rule number one: pretend to be desperate to get back into action. Rule number two: report the symptoms as explained in the booklet, but pretend you’ve no idea what disease they might represent. It was so effective that the Germans translated the pamphlet into English and redirected it at British and American troops.

    Although the malingerers’ handbook told no direct lies, it fell in the category of ungentlemanly behaviour, which was Foreign Office parlance for dirty tricks. Now you might not think a fine fellow like our Nobel peace prize winner Al Gore would ever resort to dirty tricks. Well think again.

    An early event in the politicization of climate science was a US Senate hearing organised by Al Gore in 1988. It was for his Svengali, or Savonarola if you prefer, Dr James Hansen of NASA. On US public television last year, a colleague of Gore’s confessed what happened. I quote from the transcript.of Senator Timothy Wirth.

    We called the weather bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. … So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. … What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows – I will admit that, right – so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. … The wonderful Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving his remarkable testimony.

    That was when Hansen claimed, 20 years ago mark you, that global warming was already large enough to ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.

    Exaggerations and false trails

    Churchill’s famous gesture, the right way round. Wikimedia
    A well-known ploy in propaganda is to seize on small facts and exaggerate them mightily. During the war, the finest example was V for Victory. Word came via a listening station that someone in occupied Belgium was chalking V on public walls. Being Flemish, the graffiti artist meant V for Vrijheid or freedom. But London cleverly announced that in occupied Europe people were writing V for Victory everywhere. So people tuning in secretly to the BBC went out and did just that, to infuriate the Germans and hearten their neighbours.

    Da da da daaah – the morse code for V, in Beethoven’s Fifth – became the signature tune for BBC broadcasts to occupied Europe. The only real problem was coaching Churchill to hold his hand the right way round when he made the V sign.

    Pathetic polar bears? Daily Mail
    For a small fact blown up out of all proportion by the global warmers, here’s the most remarkable case. Some years ago, a small family of polar bears was caught out in a violent storm, when swimming. They drowned. That could have happened a hundred or a thousand years ago. But no, we’re told a Walt-Disney-like tale, that bears are drowning because the Arctic ice is melting. Total rubbish, because the polar bears are terrific swimmers. And they’re thriving. Their numbers are growing, not shrinking.

    But I must admit, poor little drowning bear cubs make dazzling propaganda, of a kind to which schoolchildren in particular are vulnerable. In that connection an English high court ruled that Al Gore’s sob story about the polar bears, in his movie An Inconvenient Truth, was groundless. It was one of nine misleading claims that the judge said must be pointed out to all teachers showing that film in school. Yet people still wring their hands about the polar bears, don’t they?

    On the cover of Al Gore’s DVD, the hurricane Katrina, which battered New Orleans in 2005, comes out of a chimney stack. That takes my mind back to the wartime device of laying false trails. In 1944 the German’s launched flying bombs against London, V1s. Nasty things. Pup-pup-pup-pup – silence – 15 seconds later, bang. They were well aimed, with dreadful and demoralising hits on central London. But the British reported that Middlesex [north-west of London] was suffering particularly badly, so that the Germans would believe they were overshooting the capital. The V1 battery commanders shortened the range. It was a shame about Maidstone, but many of the missiles fell in open country in Kent.

    A modern false trail concerns the trajectories of hurricanes supposedly targeted on the USA. Prompted by global warming scientists, a typical claim by ABC News in the aftermath of Katrina said “Major storms have increased in intensity and duration by a whopping 50 % just since the 1970s.” That’s simply untrue, but all the media were saying similar things.

    In 2008, after a careful study of all hurricanes since 1900, Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center in Miami declared: “There is nothing in the US hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.” Taking account of the changing value of the dollar, Landsea and his colleagues found, for example, that the 1926 Miami hurricane was twice as costly as Katrina. Putting aside climate change, any impression that things are getting worse can be explained by better tracking of storms and more seaside real estate. Physically there’s been no increase in the frequency or violence of the storms. Although Landsea made his reassuring declaration in a press release from NOAA, the US weather bureau, and although Reuters picked up the story, it was reported in only one major newspaper (USA Today).

    Airbrushing scientific and climatic history

    In George Orwell’s 1984, Winston Smith’s job was to keep revising official history so that Big Brother would always appear omniscient and wise. That was based of course on what was common practice in the dictatorships of Europe. But in 1941, when the Soviet Union suddenly became our gallant ally against Hitler, British propaganda itself had to airbrush history. The role of cuddly Uncle Joe Stalin in the invasion of Poland in 1939, which precipitated the Second World War, could not be mentioned any more.

    And now the history of climate science has been airbrushed too. You’re not supposed to remember that in the 1960s and 1970s the top climate experts were predicting global cooling. A little ice age, or even a big ice age. They’ll try to tell you that this was just a scare got up by the media, but again that’s simply untrue. An advantage of old age is to have lived through various climate changes and the theories about them. For example, I was present in Rome in 1961 when UN agencies convened a conference of climate scientists, who discussed the dreadful effects that the all-too evident global cooling was going to have on world food supplies.

    It’s not just the history of climate science that gets airbrushed, but the history of the climate itself. Most of the cathedrals of Europe were built in a time of great prosperity called the Medieval Warm Period, when French wine producers were lamenting the competition from the English vineyards. All around the world, temperatures were at least as warm as today or even a degree or two higher. But that was before the industrial revolution, and manmade carbon dioxide was insignificant.

    “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” the global warmers said. That’s a direct quote from an email sent in 1995 to a climate scientist at the University of Oklahoma. Supporters of the manmade warming hypothesis got busy with masses of data on past climates and in 1998 they came up with a revised temperature graph for the past 1000 years. Because of its shape, it’s called the Hockey Stick. It showed temperatures pretty flat until the past 150 years, when they suddenly shot up steeply till now. The Medieval Warm Period had vanished. Dispassionate experts showed that the Hockey Stick was a statistical mishmash and not to be trusted, but the global warmers still display it like a totem at every opportunity.

    Hushing up unfavourable news

    When facts and opinions are at odds you have to be careful what you say, and coordinate your stories. For example, during the war you couldn’t complain about the wickedness of U-boats sinking allied merchant ships, because our heroes in British and American submarines were busy decimating the merchant fleets of Italy and Japan.

    My friend Henrik Svensmark was having coffee in Rome one day, at a meeting on climate change organized by the Vatican. At the next table there was a group of global-warming scientists from various institutes. They didn’t notice Henrik sitting there or they’d have treated him like an enemy spy. As it was, he listened in amazement as they carefully adjusted what each of them should say in the meeting, to avoid any hint of a contradiction.

    This wasn’t normal scientific behaviour. Usually a scientist wants to push his own hypothesis and present his evidence, wherever it leads. Mismatches of theories and data drive the jet engines of science, propelling it towards surer knowledge. What happened in the Vatican coffee bar wasn’t science, it was the coordination and fine-tuning of propaganda, aimed at persuading the Pope’s advisers that manmade global warming was confirmed as a terrible threat.

    Sh! Loss of the battleship Barham. Wikimedia.
    Hushing up unfavourable news was routine in the Second World War. In November 1941 the British battleship Barham was torpedoed in the Mediterranean. She blew up with loss of more than 800 men. But the Germans didn’t know that, so the news was censored. When the next of kin were eventually told some weeks later, they were ordered to keep it secret. But a medium, Helen Duncan, claimed to have heard the news from a dead sailor. She became the last person in England to be imprisoned for witchcraft. I’m not kidding.

    Sh! US Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea in “healthy” Antarctic ice, 2008. USAP.
    For a modern parallel, take the news about the polar sea ice. Last year [2007] you were told – shock, horror! — that Arctic sea ice was at its lowest extent since satellite measurements began. How that news was trumpeted on television and radio and in all the newspapers! What went completely unreported was that simultaneously, at the other end of the world, Antarctic sea ice was at a record high. Although the big freeze in Antarctica was again plainly announced in a press release from the US weather bureau, NOAA, not a single newspaper in North America or Europe carried this news unfavourable to the global warming brigade.

    The collusion of my fellow journalists in this protracted deception is disturbing but not surprising, I’m afraid. Unfortunately only 1% of the huge number of articles on global warming in the posh London newspapers deviate from the official line of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That’s not my reckoning. It comes from environmental researchers, at Oxford University if you please, who complain about the more balanced reporting in the not-so-posh papers, with a deviancy rate of 23%. They say it has “skewed public understanding of human contributions to climate change”. In other words, kindly abandon the journalistic principle that different points of views should be heard on controversial matters, or else a lot of dreadful people out there (you or me) may not truly believe that climate change is their fault.

    Some American journalists boast openly about their bias. Ross Gelbspan, former editor of The Boston Globe, said “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.” Charles Alexander, science editor of Time magazine said, “I would freely admit that we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

    Gagging the opposition

    In wartime most newspapers here were pretty passive. It was patriotic, as they saw it, to toe the official line. But the Evening Standard and the Daily Mirror were critical of the conduct of the war, so their editors were simply conscripted into the army. When Ritchie Calder reported the opening stages of the Blitz on London, in the Daily Herald, he complained about bureaucratic muddles that often left survivors uncared for, without food, water or medical attention. That counted as giving comfort to the enemy. The government shut him up by shanghai-ing him into Political Warfare.

    Gagging the opposition isn’t possible in peacetime, is it? You’d be surprised. I know two American solar physicists who have been warned that they’ll lose their university jobs if they go on publicly claiming that the Sun drives climate change. When Danish TV broadcast a film sceptical about the manmade global warming story, a senior government official in Copenhagen told the producer that he’d never work for Danish television again. Here, the botanist David Bellamy, well known as an environmental broadcaster, was simply dropped from the airwaves by the BBC when he rashly mentioned his doubts about global warming.

    Evidently uneasy about the attitude, the BBC newscaster Jeremy Paxman wrote in 2007, “People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that global warming is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.” The BBC Trust tried to intervene. In a hard-hitting report on “safeguarding impartiality”, it singled out climate change as an area of special concern. “Dissenters,” it said, “cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who should not be given a platform by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view.”

    And glory be, when that report came out, the BBC granted a few dreadful people like Henrik Svensmark and me, two minutes here, three minutes there, to explain why we dissented from the manmade global warming story. But that lasted only a week, before the normal partiality returned.

    Channel 4 was braver. It broadcast a film with the scandalizing title The Great Global Warming Swindle. Dozens of global warming scientists promptly weighed in with detailed complaints to the regulator Ofcom, running to about 200 pages. All they could extract from Ofcom were minor rebukes to Channel 4 about unfair treatment of three of the complainants. On a personal point, Ofcom rejected a claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (no less) that Nigel Calder had told lies in the Swindle film.

    Remember I mentioned the high court judge who identified nine misleading claims in Al Gore’s movie? Well, after a year of forensic scrutiny, Ofcom concluded that the Swindle film did not seriously mislead viewers, and affirmed that such challenging programmes should indeed be made.

    It’s notable that when lawyers look coolly at the evidence, they can be more objective than some people who call themselves scientists. And not just lawyers – hardnosed fighting men too. The US Joint Forces Command has just reported on the national security implications of climate change. There’s outrage among the global warmers because the report says, “In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory.”

    The scientific establishment in Denmark has always tried to silence Henrik Svensmark by starving him of public research funds. When the independent Carlsberg Foundation gave him a research grant, a senior civil servant wrote to the foundation demanding that the grant be withdrawn. And Henrik had to wait four years to gather enough money to build and operate quite modest equipment for a key experiment that revealed the chemical way in which cosmic rays help to make clouds.

    With his team’s successful results written up in a scientific paper, journal after journal turned it down until, after another 16 wasted months, it was finally accepted by the Proceedings of the Royal Society – so it was by no means a silly paper. Henrik wrote a follow-up article for a magazine of the Royal Astronomical Society, but the editor found herself still being criticized 18 months later for publishing such politically incorrect stuff.

    Luckily Henrik has the broad shoulders and cheerful disposition of a Viking warrior. He needs them. Just a couple of days ago, he gave a talk about cosmic rays and climate at Oslo’s natural history museum. Before he even arrived, the director of Norway’s climate centre demanded that the director of the natural history museum should resign, for his gaffe in inviting Henrik to speak.

    If the Svensmark hypothesis were stupid, people would just forget about it. Instead, over the years, the personal attacks on Henrik have become shriller and shriller. To me that’s a sure sign that his discoveries are beginning to bite. He has the global warming fraternity worried now. And as I’ll explain, Mother Nature is giving them big problems too.

    “Lie big, and stick to it”

    Adolf Hitler, poor chap, lost a testicle during the Somme battle in the First World War. As a result one of the great British morale boosters in the Second World War was the marching tune Colonel Bogey. Every serviceman and all but the primmest of civilians knew the words that went with it, written by an anonymous propagandist of some genius. The words were considered too ripe to be sung in the opening sequence of the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai, so we had only the tune of Colonel Bogey. But, ladies and gentlemen, if you happen to know the words, please join in.

    Hitler has only got one ball,

    Göring has two but very small,

    Himmler is fairly similar,

    But Goebbels has no balls at all.

    As Hitler’s propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels was my Dad’s chief wartime opponent. Among many meditations on his tradecraft, Goebbels wrote, “The English follow the principle that when you lie, you should lie big, and stick to it.” And of course Goebbels did the same himself – most wickedly in the case of the Jews.

    One of the biggest wartime lies from the British side was about setting the English Channel on fire. By chance, a bomber raid on the barges gathered in French ports for the invasion of England caught a battalion of German troops who were there only to learn about the barges. Some of them finished up in French civilian hospitals with dreadful burns from the incendiary bombs.

    So British agents in France were instructed to spread the rumour that the German army had tried to invade England but had been repelled with massive casualties. The British spread fire on the sea, in the Byzantine manner. They had reinvented Greek fire, but the weapon was so secret that the BBC wasn’t allowed to report the victory. The rumour was widely credited, among French civilians and German troops. Many people believed that big lie right till the end of the war.

    Some attempts at big lies from the global warming camp are almost too footling to bother about. “The science of climate change is settled,” they say. If you know anything at all about science, that’s as daft as saying that poetry is settled or music is settled. For goodness sake, the theory of gravity isn’t settled, 300 years after Newton.

    Just a shade more subtle is the claim that only a few ignorant scientists question the global warming scare. If so, why were they so annoyed about all those experts in The Great Global Warming Swindle? Participants in the film included the professor of meteorology at MIT, the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, the founding director of the US weather satellite service, and two physicists who won a medal from NASA for measuring Earth’s temperature from space. Other eminent sceptics, by the way, include the present director of Russia’s Global Climate Institute and the former heads of both the Australian and the Dutch climate centres. The Dutchman, Henk Tennekes, famously said, “Kyoto is onzin”. Kyoto is rubbish.

    Yet another variant of this feeble lie is that “2500 scientists agree that humans are causing a climate crisis”. These are folk listed as reviewers in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Look at the list closely and you’ll find that not many of them are climate scientists. There are economists, ecologists, geomorphologists, medical doctors etc. etc. Included in the list are many people who disagreed with the report and whose comments were ignored.

    What’s more, 2440 of the 2500 reviewers were never asked to agree that humans are responsible for climate change. Only 62 experts vetted the chapter where the key claim is made that “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” Most of those 62 were chums of the scientists who wrote the chapter. Several of the others were highly critical of the chapter, but their names still appear among the famous 2500.

    So none of these rather desperate claims, about the overwhelming authority of global warming science, begins to compare as propaganda with setting the English Channel on fire. Lie big and stick to it, like Goebbels said? Well the lie that tops my list, in global warming propaganda, is suitably breathtaking in its audacity. It says that because of all that manmade CO2 the world is getting hotter and hotter, and faster and faster.

    We’ve come to a parting of the ways. Until a few years ago, it was customary for us, the sceptics, to say we didn’t dispute the fact of global warming, during the 20th Century. We just had other explanations for it, with natural drivers of climate that were more important than human activity. Both sides agreed that one natural driver, an exceptional warming of the East Pacific, caused a brief peak in the global temperature in 1998, which could be left out of the argument. But a few years ago, on German television, I caused hilarity and outrage by suggesting that global warming had stopped. Perhaps I was a little premature, but now it looks as if I was right.

    The latest data on global temperatures up to November 2008 confirm that 2008 has been much cooler than 2007. It’s fair enough to argue about whether the Earth’s temperature has stopped rising, or merely paused, or gone into reverse. But the key fact is that, despite all that extra CO2 that’s appeared in the air in the past 20 years, the world this year [2008] is no warmer than it was in 1988, when the US Senators played tricks with the air conditioning and Dr Hansen sounded the alarm about global warming.

    There’s now panic among the global warming scientists. They want to blame the lack of warming on natural factors affecting ocean temperatures. It’s funny how they’re always glad to let nature explain a cooling trend, while dismissing any suggestion that previous warming trends could have been natural too.

    Be ready for a cooling

    Earlier this year, in the updated edition of The Chilling Stars, Henrik Svensmark and I said we were advising our friends to enjoy the global warming while it lasted. At present we have an alarming lack of dark sunspots, which are a symptom of the Sun’s magnetism. If Henrik’s theory is right, the world will now get cooler. I fear that the scientific argument may have to be settled that way, rather than by rational discussion of the rival theories. It’s a pity, because global cooling will be bad news for the world’s food supplies, just as the experts were warning, back in the 1960s.

    If there are any yachtsmen here, I’m sorry about the atrocious summer of 2008. When I listened to the shipping forecasts telling monotonously of gales in Shannon, Rockall and Malin, I remembered how, in 1588, the Spanish Armada lost two dozen ships wrecked in late summer storms on the Irish coast – more than they had lost in the Channel fights. As England’s Armada Medal put it, “God blew and they were scattered.” With hindsight, that was another occasion when the Sun was turning lazy, cooling was setting in, and the price of wheat was going to treble in 50 years.

    And any skiers among you will have been aware of all the doom-mongers predicting hard times for your sport. For example in 2003 The Independent in Londonproclaimed that “Many of Europe’s most popular skiing resorts face extinction because global warming is making snowfall increasingly unreliable.” This year, with generous snow falling in Europe and North America, in below normal temperatures, resorts started their ski season early in the expectation of bumper trade. The other day, Cortina had five feet of snow in 48 hours – enough to last the Dolomites for the entire ski season.

    Finally, any gamblers here? Back in the summer, Ladbrokes were offering odds of 7-1 for bets on a white Christmas in London. You’re too late, I’m afraid, because tough-minded bookmakers have not yet succumbed to the global warming propaganda. They’ve shortened the odds to 3-1.

    © Nigel Calder 2008

    1. Interesting article Mike but I can make it much simpler and prove beyond any doubt that Global Warming is all BS. Real simple: Take all of the grant support away from the experts given to them to keep the lie going. Take away all of the grants paid to the experts and academia and see how long Global warming is a problem. If the conservatives take control it should be one of the first things they do. Gore has made countless millions from this scam.

    2. There you go again. If you can’t attack with facts just attack the opposition’s personal credibility. The dead giveaway that global warming is total bs is the cash. Besides grants to gw supporters there’s the cap and trade scam and the carbon exchange which was coincidentally set up in Chicago — land of corruption. The real shame of global warming is all the whovillians who believe in it. Some of my in-laws are still crying over the polar bears, though their numbers are on the rise.

    3. I should define my term “whovillians” sometimes altered to “whovillains” in my more pessimistic moods. These are the folks desiring a perfect world full of magical technology and ideas of equality usually backed by central planning. In whoville there seems to be no meritocracy and little sense of reality or laws of nature. These terms lend themselves quite handily to progressivism don’t you think?

    4. Sure, I’ll be both if it helps you justify your brainwashed uninformed view of the world.
      Would you like to call me anything else? homophobic, racist, sexist, conspiracy theorists, tin foil hat nut or just crazy? All you socialists have left is lies, labels and feeling superior.
      Have a nice day, I’ll go back to my bunker.

    5. May I join you in your bunker? I will bring my 1 years supply of food for four and 20,000 rounds, plus.

    6. Yeah not a problem.. I just need to get away the socialists like THX-1138. They are just such a waste of time.

    1. I’ve already pointed you out as being guilty of using classical liberal tactics by labeling other’s citations of irrefutable facts as “spin”. We all clearly see it is due to your lack of substance and facts which make it impossible for you to mount a legitimate comeback in any argument. So why then do you choose to persist at such wasteful rhetoric and nonsense when it is quite clear to any reasonable person here that you lost the argument long ago? Have you not even the slightest inclination of pride to just quietly fade away?

  2. Historically we humans are not capable of solving our major differences at the conference table. Most major disagreements require blood letting to decide who is right (wins the war) and who is wrong (the defeated). I have to laugh when I hear the words “a world without war.” That world has to refer to heaven.
    We have a Muslim in the White House who is extremely sucessful comittimg jehod against the Democrstic Republic of The United States. Why are so many scratching their heads and confused how our President is the center of breaking down our foundations, im order to rebuild this country as a Soialist State. Nothing makes sense otherwise. The enemy and leader who is destroying all we stand for is President Obama! We have no politicians who will gather the forces and put an immediate end to this Socialist termite. He is splendid in accomplishing his goals. How stupid can we get thinking OUR President is for America! He has kicked God out of government, undermined our Second Amendment rights, and fooled folks into believing his LIES are the truth. The man should have been relieved of his office years back. Where there is a vacumn their are those ready to fill it. P. Ob. has set up our country for failure. We must prepare for the worst. Ask yourselves, are we ready to defend all that we believe in with our lives? The time to answer this question is NOW..TODAY. Let us join together and rid our home of termites!! God help us to stand up for all we love before the guns are siesed, leaving us helpless against the enemied of God and free men.

    By

    1. Thanks gunlove, “there was a war in heaven too.” That is correct, but doesn’t conflict with my statement. I mad no reference to Angels, my comment had to do with Humans. Excuse me if I didn’t make the association more obvious. . The heavenly war proves it happened in heaven, the proof being: ONE battle. We humans tend to repeat our prior mistakes, we are stubborn learners. I do apologize for many typos, have to fire my proof reader. I am honored that you read it and took time to comment. Stay positive if possible.

  3. un·alien·able
    adjective \ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈā-lē-ə-\

    : impossible to take away or give up

    in·fringe
    verb \in-ˈfrinj\

    : to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, THE 2ND AMENDMENT, etc.) ( chiefly US )

    : to wrongly [IN DEFIANCE OF 2ND AMENDMENT] limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s 2ND AMENDMENT rights)

  4. Some here appear conflicted as to the control the President has over the military based on the U.S. Armed Forces Oath that each of us took. Fear not, for the Oath provides a means to disregard an unlawful president:

    1.) Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
    2.) That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same [Constitution].
    3.) That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.
    4.) [You will do all the above] According to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    5) So help me God.

    Number 4 of the oath is quite clear in that it provides the Armed Forces a lawful means in which they may disobey ANY order they feel is unlawfully executed by the President or officers.

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice, which we must obey, specifically states it is our duty to disobey any unlawful order. That would clearly encompass an unlawful order given by the President to kill the citizenry for uprising in support of the Constitution against a tyrannical president.

    On a more humorous note – should the liberals insist on prosecuting us for disobeying the President’s order to kill innocent U.S. citizens, we always have line #5 of the Oath to fall back on. Since the same liberals hadn’t yet got around to pulling God out of the Oath, that could render the contract null and void and serve as a basis for dismissal… given they don’t believe in God.

  5. Einstein,

    If you think the Second Amendment is obsolete because the government has more powerful weapons than the general public, then you don’t understand the concept of asymmetric conflict. I suggest you educate yourself about such matters by studying recent conflicts, such as the one in which the primitive, poorly-armed Taliban held their own against the US military and NATO for over ten years. Keep in mind that armed US citizens have many advantages over the Taliban, such as far greater numbers, higher-quality weapons and ammo, and access to the home territory of the opposition. So the Second Amendment is still the key to freedom.

    Be that as it may, the Second Amendment is moot when the population has been mentally disarmed, i.e., when the vast majority of armed Americans think of their weapons as range toys (or for defense against terrorists hiding under the bed) and can’t even conceive of using them for Second Amendment purposes. The Bill of Rights has already been dispensed with by the government, yet Americans barely seem to notice as long as they still have their cable TV.

    Ultimately, no one has any rights that they aren’t willing to personally fight and die for, preferably in association with lots of other like-minded people. The Taliban had one tremendous advantage: they weren’t afraid of hardship or death. Most Americans are terrified of those things, even though death is inevitable and is as natural as life.

    One last point. Although the US military is not invincible, America’s huge standing army is still the greatest danger to our liberty, just as our Founders warned us. The US military has been used against the American people numerous times in the past, and nothing prevents this from happening again. Therefore, we should drastically reduce the size of US ground forces and rely on our air and naval power for national defense. Even if we didn’t have a massive nuclear deterrent, no foreign military would be capable of occupying the US. And we don’t need to be constantly running around the world invading other countries, thereby provoking people to commit terrorism in the US (as rare as such attacks may be).

    1. ChaosTheory.

      There’s a Black Hole in your Theory. The Taliban had a purpose and knew what they were fight for. The Americans your talking about, don’t have a clear-cut purpose and they collectively don’t know what their fight for.

  6. Why can’t we work together to get guns out of the hands of criminals and people with mental problems that keep them from handling a gun safely?
    This is all that most people really want, I know this question will be attached by some but it really needs answered and acted on.

    1. Bad people and crazies don’t obey laws so how do you expect laws to reign them in? I hate seeing another shooting on the news. New town breaks my heart man. The feds and states dropped mental health services so the crazies run free range and unconstrained. Criminals by their very nature don’t follow legal guidelines, they need a gun they just steal them or get them from their pals who do.

      I’d love to clean up the gun issue too, but I’m not giving mine up to o do it. The liberal agenda wants the c azies free and the guns gone.

    2. I don’t know where the “government” gets its ideas from but to me they are only in the positions they are in to benefit themselves. They don’t give a hoot about U.S., our safety and OUR RIGHTS. They want to give amnesty to illegals, They want to release proven bad people from prisons, They want to take away every ounce of pride WE have and belittle OUR country for their benefit. WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA, They want it all for themselves.

    3. It can’t be acted on because ultimately progressives want all guns gone. That is no secret. It’s not that people that defend 2A are against getting guns out of the hands of crazy, evil, nutcases it is that we know the ultimate goal and giving an inch on 2A will make progressives go for a foot. We are not a bunch of nuts out here but we know better than to let the progressives screw with a constitution that they hate.

    4. There are already laws in place to keep firearms out of the hands of folks with records of domestic violence, felony convictions, and dangerous mental health issues. The reason they do not work is because criminals and crazy people don’t typically obey the law. You know what is really the cause of gun violence, and violence in general, here in America? We have a massive drug fueled gang problem. How about we work on that before we start taking rights away from law abiding citizens. As far as school shootings go, the problem with that is the fact that our schools are gun free zones. We give a shooter free reign of the situation to shoot as many innocent people as he can until he is met with armed resistance. As soon as the good guys with the guns arrive, be it a police officer or an armed citizen, the shooter always either gives up or shoots himself. This goes for pretty much every mass shooting here in the U.S.

  7. the article omitted one other states senate race. Iowa’s Joni Ernst R vs Bruce Brailey D for Tom Harkin D vacating seat. Joni is career military& pro gun.

    1. Now you’re just being asinine. It is obvious you’re just trying to make a statement without any real facts to back it up. If you truly understood Sharia Law there’d be no way you’d be willing to make that association. You would instead know that it makes you look quite stupid. As it stands, it’s obvious you don’t even have the faintest idea the rules of Sharia.

      When liberal minded persons can’t fight the real fight with facts, they claim, as you just did, that their opponent is “spinning” an issue. So I challenge you to instead of acting like a liberal, to actually come back with facts. Explain to me how it is “spin” to fight to save a life as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

      This is a very serious issue for me and not one to mince words over. You are a disgusting excuse for a human being if you even try…

    2. Rowe vs. Wade is not the law of the land. It is merely an opinion made by 7 of 9 judges as to their interpretation of standing on a woman’s right to privacy when deciding to kill their babies under due process as provided by the 14th amendment.

      Despite Rowe vs Wade, States continue to regulate and limit abortions and do so each with their own independent set of rules. Rules I presume you believe to be Sharia Law. Bet you didn’t know you’ve been living in a Muslim country all along did you?

      I’ll also lay odds you had no idea that Supreme Court decisions are only opinions and have no effect on the law. That we oblige the Supreme Court’s opinion is a mere courtesy, but nothing in law states we MUST follow their decisions.

      If you could think out of the box and actually study the true law and intent in our Constitution I think that which you previously incorrectly thought you understood about law would be an extremely rude awakening for you.

      The Constitution in The Bill of Rights always has, and always will, give unmitigated protection and precedence to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That will always and forever trump the 7 men that thought it acceptable to ignore the Constitution and allow babies to be killed in the womb.

      In the same regard, people that follow Row vs Wade are among the same ilk that ignore the Second Amendment, of which clearly states “Shall Not Be Infringed”, yet we see many laws and court decisions that ignore that distinct element of the Constitution and continue to trounce all over it. Just because they do it, doesn’t make it right.

      Your pitiful excuse to follow as sheep and cite Row vs. Wade as if it were some free ticket to kill innocent unborn babies is still just as disgusting. Murder is murder and obviously you support it. Try growing a set and stand on your own. How shameful are you?

    3. @ Secundius: You simply show your lack of education on how the system works. Your citation is not a law, it is merely a reference to a written opinion. That is not my opinion that is a fact. Get educated before you spout off.

  8. Unbelievable. We need the second amendment to protect us from the government. A government with the largest army in the world. With weapons that will make our most powerful available weapons meaningless. Like showing up to a gun fight with a knife. Don’t you see, we already have gun control. The more you fight this the worse it will be. Either start working with the “hated liberals” which appear to be 80% of the country (yes over 80% of the country wants better gun control than we have today), or face having the second amendment completely repealed.

    1. @ Einstein: First off you are wrong to think the U.S. has the largest army in the world. The largest army in the world is instead owned by the People’s Republic of China and is almost double our manpower. It continues to grow while Obama ensures our military continues to be cut significantly.

      I’m sorry to say, but ensuring the credibility in your statements means everything these days. Otherwise anything else you say is simply moot and dismissed.

      But I digress; your point was simply to state that we, the average citizen gun owners, are no match against the military – so we may as well give in to the “hated liberals”.

      Maybe you are unaware that the Constitution prevents the use of military on U.S. soil against its own citizens. So I am not quite sure when it is you think the military would ever be ordered to use their all powerful weapons against the citizenry.

      So, that just leaves law enforcement to handle the domestic uprisings and issues. As such, might I now bring your attention to a very recent example of a rather large armed uprising between hundreds of armed citizens and federal law enforcement that occurred at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada?

      As I recall, the massive amount of armed citizenry in attendance did in-fact force the federal side to back down and withdraw its forces without ever having to fire a shot. I don’t know about you, but that’s a big win for the conservatives against the so-called “hated liberals” and gun control.

      Now let us go ahead and examine things were a President to be crazy enough to authorize martial law and go ahead with the use of our military and their “most powerful available weapons” against its own citizens. Are you speaking of the same military that can’t even slow down ISIS in Iraq right now?

      My point here is not to champion such ruthless cutthroats such as ISIS against our own brothers-in-arms, but rather to point out that the type of weaponry doesn’t really matter when you are up against an ideologically determined group. The same goes for our losses in Korea and Vietnam; just the same as the superior Russian forces had to eventually pull out with a loss in Afghanistan after 10 years.

      All of which was exceptionally superior weaponry up against unsophisticated forces living in subhuman conditions, yet they won. I think I’ve made my point.

      So now I must close by addressing your flawed statistics that 80% of the country wants better gun control. After Obama used it in a speech, that myth was disproven over and over again by so many official sources on both sides, to the point the libs are too embarrassed to use it anymore. I guess you didn’t get the memo.

      So you see, we are winning – and as such, there really is no need to even consider your suggestion that we “start working with the ‘hated liberals’”. I’m not sure if you’ve even been paying attention, but we have been overwhelmingly winning so many Second Amendment related court battles lately that it makes your statement quite the joke.

      But the icing on your insanity cake is when you imply we might, “face having the second amendment completely repealed”. There truly would be a civil war before that ever happened and we are not even remotely close to that. Get a clue brutha…

    2. Although not as eloquent as G-Man let me get 2 cents in on this one…
      A GROUP OF PATRIOTS TAKING ON THE STANDING GOVERNMENT ARMY ……… UNHEARD OF, NEVER HAPPEN, HOW COULD THEY HOPE TO WIN.
      In 1776 that exact thing happened. Those tired of tyranny, farmer, shop keeper, slaves, regular folks, fought what was then the mightiest military on earth. Care to guess the outcome?

      As a side note. You are assuming that if an administration did turn lose the military on US citizens, the military would jump right in line and fire on their own people….. NOT. An oath only has meaning when the oath is right.

    3. @ Mc Ruger.

      If your referring to the Loyalty Oath, that Swore to, and Sign your name too. Then, it’s a Binding Contract. To Defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the President of the United States, From both Foreign and Domestic Threats. Applies…Regardless of you personal views!!!

    4. Secundius…. Come on man think before you write. If the administration is trying to eliminate or violate part of the Constitution and part of the citizens are trying to protect it, Which side have they sworn to protect?

      Perhaps you have heard of the American Civil War. Regardless of the trigger it was a group of Americans fighting for constitutional rights.

    5. @ Mc Ruger.

      The loyalty Oath I signed, didn’t have a SIDE, it was ECUMENICAL. As far a Presidents, Richard Milhous Nixon. You know the one, the one in which G-Man went to JAIL FOR.

    6. If it is all-embracing, all-inclusive I guess the side that attempts to protect the Constitution gets the military.
      As far as your other reference I don’t know what your talking about.

    7. @ Mc Ruger.

      You might want to reread your posted comments. You mention, Which side have they have sworn to protect. WHO IS THEY. Sir.

      I don’t recall a THEY being mentioned in MY Loyalty Oath! Now, there might have an THEY mentioned in your Loyalty Oath?

    8. Mc Ruger, our number one domestic enemy is in the Oval Office. I doubt the military would follow an illegal order to fire on civilians..

    9. Bob without question our number one enemy is in the oval office.. I agree and that was my point several posts ago. I don’t think anyone needs to worry about taking on the military.

  9. For us in WA State it may be too late. I-594 is exactly the nefarious misleading anti-gun campaign all American citizens would best fear.

    The rich a-holes like Gates, Bloomberg, Ballmer, etc all buddy together and are bent to remove firearms from the American citizen. This IS their end-game plan.

    1. @ joe.

      Who’s trying to introduce SHARIA LAW into the United States, NOT the Democrats, but the Republicans. When you try to Lock up women from Right granted to them by Constitutional Law and tell them, what they can’t do with there reproductive system. THAT’S SHARIA LAW!!!

    2. @ Secondius: That’s a pretty twisted statement and even more sad if you actually believe it. Republicans are not trying to control women in “what they can’t do with there [sic] reproductive system[s]”. They are defending the unalienable Constitutional right of the defenseless living human being that some of these women carelessly bring into existence, and then murder as an inconvenience of their stupidity.

      You are quite the sick minded individual to associate such a noble effort with Sharia Law and should be ashamed.

    3. Secundius I just have to tell you. Of all the dumb, uninformed, ridiculous statements I have seen posted your takes the prize. It is mind boggling to think how you could make an irresponsible and just plain stupid statement. No one that I know or even heard of is trying to “Lock up women from Rights granted to them by Constitutional Law and tell them, what they can’t do with their reproductive system”. Women have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies. Take drugs, get tattoos, get holes poked in their faces, take birth control, cut of an arm if they want to. No one cares. When it comes to abortion though it is not that simple. 1st it is murder whether you admit it or not you know it’s true. Women are now using it as a method for gender selection… it’s taking a human life. 2nd there are 3 people involved in a pregnancy, mother, father and baby. I am the most freedom loving person I know and I would never prevent a person from exercising their god given rights. However this is not Just 1 person decision to make. It is not as simple as what she wants to do with her own body.
      On top of that, to accuse Republicans of trying to introduce SHARIA LAW when it is categorically Progressives that support the Muslim religion is beyond adbserd . I honestly do not know how you could try to post anything stupider than this. Unbelievable.
      Well anyway I am done reading anything you posts from here on and I’m sure not responding to them.

  10. Please god, stop using the word “liberal” as some kind of attack.

    I am a “Liberal” gun-owner and defend 2a everywhere I go. There are many of us. We despise the way that “Liberal” is used as a bad word.

    Use Democrat and Republican, or speak about issues. Don’t invoke “Liberal” since it speaks more about openness to change than actual policies.

    1. The problem is that if you are a “liberal” you are not only supporting anti 2A, but also a lot of other issues in their platform that are anti Constitutional. The “liberal” atittude and lack of common sense not only towards guns ,but towards most aspects of daily life issues in America actually makes it a bad word.Maybe it is time to reconsider changing parties. I know that some of the republicans can seem to go to an extreme , but it have been necesssary to counteract the extreme left doings. I am a conservative by itself, not arepublican. But I preffer 1000 times to vote republican and suggest inside the republican party any changes they need to do to not look so radical than to vote for a party that wants to completely ammend the Constitution to the point of making it useless. I cant understand neither why democrats dont understand the simple concept of a Constitutional Republic , which is what we have,and guarantees the rights of everyone ,opposed to a real democracy in which the vote of 50% +1 reigns over all the issues ,in fact courting the rights of minorities. The left if moving presently toward socialism and olygarchy. Also the republicans want a smaller government (which means lower taxes and more freedom to Americans) and to find a way to deal with social security. Not because they want to take it away as the liberals want to make us believe, but because it is a reality that if we dont do something now over the abuse the welfare living are doing over ss and other programs, we WILL NOT HAVE A SS TOMORROW. it is simple mathematics, nothing last forever if you keep taking out from it and not putting enough back. This kinds of atittudes without any though or commons sense is what makes the liberals look erratc and ill minded. If you get yourself educated about the real issues you will see why there is no way to support the liberals. Tell me one thing in which the republicans will take your rights away in something that is really signicative and it is not just liberal propaganda.

  11. Being a West Virginian Voter… I can “CONFIRM” that the NRA ratings are worthless…
    The NRA gave Manchin an “A” in the last election, and look what has happened after he got to Washington DC… FLIPPED…
    If you truly want to know your candidate, get OUT and listen to them when they give their talks to EACH GROUP… See if they stand FIRM on one Idea, or FLIP their speeches to FIT the Group they are talking too…
    I tried to tell the NRA how Manchin was flipping when speaking to different groups and their reply back too me… “our representatives(NRA) in Washington have better insight into Manchin due to his presents here as the Governor of WV….”
    Well… you can see just how well the NRA Insight was after Manchin became a Senator… GUN CONTROL… … So, too me, the NRA backs Gun Control…

    1. @Mitch.

      Well you stated that all Obama appointee’s are ANTI-GUN. Kerry and Hagel, are Obama appointee’s and are NRA members. So that means NRA members are ANT-GUN or just the RANKIN-FILE members are ANTI-GUN. Which is it, It’s either ONE or THE OTHER, you can’t have BOTH.

    2. Ok, THX

      If Hagel is Pro Gun, fine… I don’t see that happening under Obama, that’s just an agenda waster… As far as John F. Kerry, he is the most anti-gun Presidential nominee in United States history… That is straight from the NRA, which you seem to think I mentioned in these posts… I didn’t, and having an NRA card in your wallet doesn’t mean anything other than you paid them…

  12. There are 27 Amendments, in the Constitution of the United States. You make it sound like there only one that really matters, the Second Amendment. And everything else can be pitch into the trash. NOBODY from the Federal Government, that we all Voted On and Put Into Place, has come too my residence and even attempted to take away my guns. Your using Fear, Race, and whatever other PARANOIA to Scare people into submission. Just so, a SELECTED FEW can control the country and our lives! Well I’m not buying into your claim. I didn’t join the NRA, to be lead around by the nose and be told WHAT TO DO, and WHAT NOT TOO DO AT THEIR WHIM! I have a working brain, and plan too use it.

    1. Yes I know how many amendments there are. I did not say the 2nd amendment was the only one that matters however it is the most important. The second amendment defends the rest of the Constitution. That’s why it’s there.
      Yet pal, Yet. No one has come to take your guns yet. If you don’t think that’s not the goal of the administration you are diluting yourself. There is a SELECTED FEW trying to control the country and our lives but it isn’t the pro second amendment crowd. It is the liberals and is not even debatable. What do you think the CHANGE is? Have you been asleep for the past 6 years?
      The second part of your response is just typical progressive garbage. I’m not trying to scare anyone into doing anything and what in the hell are you bring race into this for. Again, typical liberal response. I’ve been a member of NRA for 30 years and never even had a suggestion of what to do or think. I am VERY glad that the NRA and GOA exist.
      IF in fact you do have a working brain I suggest you exercise it a little more. Considering your comments here all you’re doing is repeating Liberal trash.

    2. If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

      This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking but are too cautious to express openly.

      I hope it never comes to what he is advocating but I can certainly see where the possibility exists.

      God help us all if it ever does happen.

      PS : Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

      Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name “D.H. Garrison, Jr.”

      Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

      Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

      I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

      About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

      If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

      Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

      Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

      Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

      Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

      I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

      Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

      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.

      This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

      For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

      The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

      Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

      The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

      I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement. We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

      A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

      Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

      It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

      If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority cannot take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

      Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy.A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

      I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

      Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

      I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

      If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2013 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

      This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

      I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

      What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

      I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I cannot tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

      You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

      I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

      For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

      Are you willing to die to take my guns?

    3. Thanks Mike for making it clearer what America is and is not. That being we are a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. This is a great article and a lesson we should be telling others. We have an eroding America and its values. Legislation which twists and distorts. All at the hands of an immoral, greedy, self-serving and arrogant bunch that have no regard for their fellow American or the Constitution. The hypocrisy of Feinstein, Bloomberg, Obama and others is unbelievable. Under the guise of public safety, to prevent killings with guns they push for gun-control. It isn’t about public safety at all. It is about control of the people by disarming. The assault on the second amendment is just the first step in eliminating the Constitution. If accomplished, the other rights we are privileged to have guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be dismantled. That is the work of a perverse Tyrannical government. I stand with you Mike and other Patriots.

    4. @Mike…Now, there’s one for the billboards. That’s about all I can say to this post as it says everything I believe in. All I can add is, “Are you willing to die to take my guns too?”
      To the rest of you, well…you’re all sort of hinting on one thing nobody has ever had the balls to say. For you American Legion members, you can relate to this. People have voted God out of government and other public buildings and places, taken prayer out of schools and such. Our Fore Fathers not only founded this Country on Freedom, but on the principles of God and Religion also. I had the Constitution printed out and right here in my file drawer for many years but I must have misplaced it. No matter, I, and YOU can pull it up and print it out any time we want. IF and when you do, check out what it starts with. It’s called ‘The Preamble To The United States Constitution” which starts out, “For God and Country….”. So, as in Mikes’ post, Dean is right. It’s not JUST out 2A right, it’s our God given right to keep and bear arms. AND…Gods’ 6th Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” means “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. God has given us the right to defend ourselves, our family members and whom ever is near if deadly force is necessary. Killing in a situation like war or protection is NOT murder and is not a sin. Downright premeditated murder does go against the 6th Commandment and is a deadly sin. So, as for our right to keep and bear Arms, I believe I’ve seen that hint in posts above that most of you do understand what I’m saying. That’s a good thing. 🙂 I, too, will not be a slave. “Are you willing to die to take my guns?” I’m willing to die to protect my, and your right to keep and bear Arms. And to protect YOU if you are next to me. Are you? God Bless.

    5. Forefathers..sp? ‘…and It’s not JUST (out)’… should be ‘our’. I usually proofread my posts better before I hit the submit button but sometimes I miss a few things. Anyway, I think I got my simple point across. As for God and the 6th Commandment and all, I’m a Christian and attend Adult Sunday School and Church regularly and that subject was just in one of our Sunday School lessons a couple weeks ago…I think…might be in a book I’m reading….(don’t get old…it sucks) We just got a new quarterly book so I don’t have the other one at hand, so I can’t remember what Book, Chapter and Verse that’s in, in the Bible, but it’s there. I don’t dwell on remembering Book, Chapter or Verse numbers anyway. I just want to remember Gods’ word. And no, I’m not trying to push my religious beliefs on you, just stating what I just recently learned. Happy Thanksgiving everybody and good luck hunting. As for me…if I don’t get a deer this year, I’m done. LOL! My son talked me into getting back into hunting about 6 years ago and about 2 years ago I saw one doe but couldn’t get at the right angle to get a good shot even though she was only about 20 feet away. (I have a Class A disabled permit so I can shoot either sex…don’t have to get a buck first) Of course, her looking me straight in the eyes didn’t do much to enable me to go for the ‘Great White Hunter of the year” award either…guess I’ll just stick to fixing guns and shooting at baloons or something…on my target board, of course…not out of the sky!! LOL!!

    6. Our Declaration of Independence backs up everything that Mike has wrote. How else would we be able to replace a tyrannical government wit sticks and stones??

      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 to 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 shown 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.

    7. Hey Mc Ruger…I read something in a yahoo news article…yeah, I know…yahoo….and AP…anyway, it did raise my eyebrows a tad. Have y’all noticed all this hype about gun control over the last 6 years….and not a single gun control law has been passed…yet? I can’t help but wonder something. Y’all probably know how the politicians and pharmicuit…pharm….grrr….pill companies, along with the Doctors and professors are all in bed with each other, not teaching Doctors how to cure people anymore, but to just treat the symptoms by pushing more and more pills on us and getting kick-back…oh, it wasn’t yahoo I read this in, it was one of the gun dealers I do business with…or was it in NRA?? American Legion Paper?? Durn memory… Anyway, the news is that for the last few years there’s been a run on guns like the AR-15 and every other kind of assault looking rifle on the market, but that interest seems to have lost its momentum this year. Which, of course, leaves those gun dealers that have stocked up on those guns and still have many of them in stock to lose money on them when they sell them now because the value has dropped…but I was wondering…knowing this, does anyone get the idea that all this has just been a scam to get kick-back from gun manufacturers like they are from the pill pushers? Or, maybe to manipulate votes, perhaps??? Probably not…but there is that possibility since those thieving politicians are always looking for ways to pad their wallets. I’m not living in a fairy tale world but, with all the secrecy, them controlling the press now, along with everything else the wimps of this Country have been letting them get away with for the last 50 years….uh…who knows? I mean…really? (I say wimps because when I was growing up I lived in a Country of tough men who had recently returned home from winning wars and weren’t about to let anybody run roughshod over us.) I don’t know where they went but I haven’t seen them in years. Most of them must still be around since they weren’t that much older than me back in the early ’60’s. Now-a-days, and for many years, it’s the ‘I don’t want to get involved’ attitude.
      In a word…chickenshit.
      Now, I’m not about to let my guard down but, that does kind of make one wonder….don’t it?….just a tad??

  13. We are all entitled to our opinions however It is sometimes very difficult to tell if you guys are joking, being sarcastic or just brainwashed progressives.
    “ The NRA is not fighting for us”,,, Of course they have an agenda, so do you, so do I. They also are a voice for gun owners’ rights as is GOA.
    “Global Warming is more important than gun laws/restrictions”. This is such a ridiculous statement I had to read it again to make sure I wasn’t seeing things. Seriously children how do you come up with this nonsense?
    There is nothing more important to our freedom than protecting the Constitution.

    2A has nothing to do with being able to kill a duck. It is my God given right to feed my family by any means. It has nothing to do with fending off bad guys. It is my God given right to protect my family just like any other creature. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend Liberty. What could be more important?

    “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
    Richard Henry Lee

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  14. @ Vincent & THX-1138: I would implore you both to reconsider your thoughts on the matter. Nothing is ever more important than our right to bear arms. It is the fundamental key to the security of everything else we hold dear. Without the people’s ability to keep the government in check, everything else you’ve mentioned is easily lost.

    Even with a well-armed America, Obama has still already shown us his ability to invoke extreme totalitarian decisions with more to come on immigration overrides that defy the law. As well, the courts increasingly enjoy overruling our votes constantly at both State and Supreme Court levels as entire winning propositions voted in by the majority are regularly abolished by just a few men of the Courts.

    Also consider the out-of-control Federal Government enforcers that didn’t bat an eye as they slaughtered and buried cattle to cover the evidence up during the Bundy Ranch standoff. Were it not for those brave armed men and women that stood up to Obama’s enforcers, they would have lost everything to a totalitarian government.

    So imagine how much more these men would attempt to get away with if they did not have the fear of the armed citizenry’s ability to up rise.

    While all the issues you’ve mentioned are important, they are in no way “considerably more important”. Nothing will ever be more important than one’s ability to defend their freedom. For without that, nothing else is worth having. To believe otherwise most assuredly is the causation behind the decline of this once great Nation.

  15. I don’t put any thought into the political compromising NRA… They can be bought just like any street walker… I listen to what the GOA and NAGR say, they are fighting for us, not their personal agenda…

    As far as Montana, pigs will fly if Rep. Daines doesn’t win… Here’s to Do nothing Harry’s retirement

    Cheers

    1. @Mitch.

      The NRA, is not fighting for us, there fighting for themselves. Too get richer and more powerful. There like the Masons and the Skulls of the 19th century.

  16. @Vincent.

    One of the few common sense people I’ve met of the The Shooter’s Log Discussion Forum. I was starting to doubt their were any of us left.

  17. There are a lot more issue considerably more important than gun laws/restrictions this time around, such as Social Security, Internet Taxation, tier level Internet, the economy, Global Warming, etc. So, I would not suggest anyone vote simply based on gun laws/restrictions.

    1. @ Vincent
      I would not suggest voting on one stand alone issue either…but… Without the Constitution, in its entirety…. everyone of the issues you mentioned is irrelevant. My votes go to those who will “Protect and Defend” the Constitution.

    2. Larry, Your comments make it clear you are not an educated person and are very biased. Gun control is NOT one of the more important issues going on today, so your feeling about gun control and the NRA are a bit archaic, based on your 30 years with the NRA. There is nothing wrong with believing in the Second Amendment, and ‘fighting’ to keep it alive and real, nor in being an NRA member, but name bashing is very indicative of your lack of understanding the more important issues we face today.

      Furthermore, much of the action hindering gun control is done at the State level, and not at the Federal level. Since you seem to want to bash the current administration (your reference to the past 6 years), I suspect at the heart of things that you have other issues and biases with the current administration beyond gun control.

    3. Vincent,

      You are asleep concerning the current admin… Every single appointee of Obama is anti-gun… Every one of them, and some that don’t get appointed, like the wannabe surgeon general, who is publicly anti-gun… What that has to do with medicine can only be answered by liberal gun grabbers like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Bloomberg, etc… And yes, I do have other issues with Obama, like him breaking the Constitution every time he thinks about anything…

    4. Your opening sentence suggests that you are highly educated whereas anyone that disagrees with you is not. This of course is instantly recognizable as a common liberal tactic. Anyone that doesn’t fall in line with the liberal brainwashing is uneducated. Liberal brainwashing is very effective and I know from experience that arguing with you is a waste of my time. I also know that liberals have no mechanism for processing logic or truth but I have 10 minutes free so I thought I’d try to piss you off.
      It is just not possible to take anyone serious that mentions Global Warming as one of the most important issues facing our country. Contrary to Obama and Biden who can’t distinguish between the truth and a lie and Gore who has made millions off the issue, Global Warming is not a fact. It is not the most important policy Obama could address in his second term. (His words not mine) The fact that Obama made that statement is a testament to how out of touch with reality he is and how gullible he knows you all are.
      Gun control may not be the most important issue facing the country but it is vital to the future of Liberty. Any restrictions to 2A whether by state or federal government is an assault on the Construction and cannot be allowed… You are a fool to think otherwise.

    5. I started a reply last night but battery died. I still want to comment though the conversation has shifted. Vincent has exemplified the liberal debate tactic. When attacks on facts fail attack the oppositions personal credibility. Obama has lots of ‘educated’ folks around him how’s that going? On global warming the liberal stats grow thin, its just another liberal straw man in a long line of liberal straw men eg: war on women, the min wage, fast and furious, health care, etc. They need a problem to enable them to flex their agenda–never waste a crisis, remember?

      As for the 2nd amendment not intending hunting or sporting purposes, look at the state of our govt. How much more tyrannical do you want the govt to be? Look at all the unconstitutional actions of the IRS, epa , nsa homeland security, all the presidents pen and phone deals around congress checks and balances. Immigration is next AFTER the election. Just imagine what he’d do if we were unarmed.

      I personally don’t like the transformation of our country. Do you?

    6. @ Gunlove.

      It’s not just about the Crazies and Criminals, its Anyone? I heard about a case where a resident from California drove to Arizona to by a M1A (civilian varient of the M1 Garand Rifle). Show the Gun Store Owner his California Drivers License. Slipped the owner 2-Grand, NO PAPER WORK. And left the store, without any problems. If he can do it, anyone can do it…

      To paraphrase: “Money Talks, the Gun Law Walks.”

    7. There are no laws against interstate sales of long guns. Handguns yes, long guns no. M1 garands are not illegal in california either. Whats your point? Did that man take his m1 and shoot up a public place?

      Personally I have had background checks on the last several buys I’ve made and filled out the forms for nearly all of them. However, the current bill in my state also requires checks for all transfers public and private. So I have to go through the background checks to leave my guns to my family. Its mainly registration they’re after not safety. Thats the inch people are speaking of in other comments.

      Again criminals and crazies don’t abide by laws. If they did newtown wouldn’t have happened and aurora too. More laws do not equal more safety. The only answer to this progressive proposal is ultimately taking all guns. No dice.

    8. Besides there’s already a law against that transfer if it actually happened. Did it work there? Would two or three laws have stopped it? Progressives just want regulations to enforce AND a civilian populace unarmed.

    9. Vinny,

      Regardless of what liberals like you believe, Al Gore didn’t invent the internet, but he did invent Gorebull warming.

      For you to suggest that Gorebull warming is an important issue in this election seriously brings your sanity into question. The 2nd amendment is under attack by liberal Democrats all over the nation, at both the state and federal level. Without the 2nd amendment all other rights are in danger of being lost as well.

      The right of self defense is one of our God given rights the 2nd amendment was written to protect from infringement by the government.

      When liberal Democrats ( like yourself ) voted to remove any reference to God from their party platform at their last convention, they exposed themselves and their intentions to the world.

      A Godless, moraless party isn’t one that can be trusted to govern over a free people, and anyone that intends to remain free has to reject them at every level.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.