Archive for the ‘Commentaries’ Category

How do fools like this get to this position?


Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Change the 2nd Amendment

(The Blaze) – Pro-gun advocates will likely be relieved that John Paul Stevens, 93, is now retired and no longer serving as a member of the Supreme Court. In his upcoming book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” he argues for a slight change to the Second Amendment that would fundamentally alter its meaning.

As written by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment reads:

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.

Stevens argues that the authors of the Second Amendment were mostly concerned about being oppressed by a national standing army, not so much about the right to self-defense.

FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Don’t Let The Government Take Your Guns! Protect Your Second Amendment Rights!

So in order to reflect the changing times, he says, the Second Amendment should be altered to add five key words:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

“Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands,” Stevens writes in his defense of the change.

Stevens retired in 2010 after serving on the nation’s highest court for 35 years.

The odds of his crusade to transform the Second Amendment has little chance of even receiving serious consideration as Americans have rejected gun control efforts at the state and federal levels.

– See more at:

Guns Don’t Kill People; Gun Control Laws Kill People by Chuck Baldwin, September 19, 2013

Guns Don’t Kill People; Gun Control Laws Kill People
By Chuck Baldwin
September 19, 2013

This column is archived here.

Here we go again. We have another mass shooting at yet another “gun-free” zone. Not only was the location a “gun-free” zone, it was located inside the nation’s capital, which has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the entire country.

I thought gun-control laws and “gun-free” zones were supposed to protect people from gun violence. If one listens to the vast majority of talking heads on network and cable news shows, including Piers Morgan and Joe Scarborough, that is exactly what we are led to believe. But in reality, just the opposite is true. “Gun-Free” zones are actually “Free Killing” zones. And in truth, guns don’t kill people; gun-control laws kill people.

This is the second time in recent memory when some wacko shoots up a military installation. The first killer was a Muslim; this one was a Buddhist. He also happened to be a black man and an Obama supporter. This combination must drive the politically-correct mainstream media and the left-wing extremist hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), batty. According to these folks, the only people who commit gun violence are angry Christian white guys. But as most of us know, no race or religion or political affiliation has a monopoly on criminal conduct. Unless it’s those miscreants in Washington, D.C., of course.

True to form, the idiotic Washington press corps initially reported that the killer used an AR-15 rifle. To their chagrin, it turned out he used a shotgun. This hasn’t stopped gun-hater Senator Dianne Feinstein from immediately calling for more gun control. And the White House is saying Barack Obama is going to issue some kind of anti-gun executive orders. Leave it to a lame duck Marxist President to try to bypass Congress and ignore the overwhelming majority of the American people (including Democrats) who have made it clear they are in no mood to accept any additional gun control.

It was only a few days ago when two liberal anti-gun legislators who spearheaded the drive for egregious gun-control laws in the State of Colorado were recalled from office. And they won’t be the only ones. Come next year, there will be a host of anti-gun legislators all over the country who are going to be given their walking papers by their respective electorates. The only states where it is safe for politicians to promote gun control are socialist states such as New York, Massachusetts, and California. By and large, the American people have had all of the gun control laws they can stomach. They have drawn their line in the sand. They are not only voting at the ballot box, they are voting with their pocketbooks. Gun manufacturers and retail stores cannot keep up with the demand for guns and ammo. Even .22 rimfire ammunition is as scarce as hen’s teeth.

Mind you, this DC killer had passed at least two background checks by the US military; he had what is called a “secret” clearance; he was given an honorable discharge from the United States Navy; he had been awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal. Born and raised in one of the most anti-gun cities in America, New York City, the man was given a rifle permit by the New York Police Department. So, pray tell, please explain how any existing gun-control laws–or any future gun-control laws–would have been able to prevent this guy from doing what he did?

In fact, the gun-control laws that Obama, Feinstein, et al, are clamoring for are the very laws that contributed to the deaths of those 12 innocent victims. Had these victims been allowed and encouraged to carry their own arms for self-defense, the death toll would doubtless have been much less. But this is the same story in every single one of these mass shootings. The perpetrator knows he is entering a “gun-free” zone and none of his targets will be able to shoot back. I repeat: guns don’t kill people; gun-control laws kill people.

Our Constitution recognizes the organic right of free people to serve as self-defenders. The Militia of the several states is comprised of every able-bodied man and woman (excepting conscientious objectors) within the State. And each man and woman is recognized as having the responsibility to: 1) be personally and adequately armed, 2) be adequately trained and skilled in the use of arms, and 3) be expected to defend themselves and others from attack when necessary.

It has never been the government’s responsibility to protect us; it has always been the people’s responsibility to protect themselves. It is the government’s responsibility to protect the right of the people to protect themselves. As seen in every single mass shooting, the government is completely incapable of protecting the citizenry from these kinds of attacks. If the people do not protect themselves, there is no protection. All these gun-control laws do is prohibit the people from protecting themselves. This is why we desperately need State leaders to declare any and all federal gun-control laws to be null and void and boldly declare to the people of their states that they will honor and protect the people’s right and duty to defend themselves.

Furthermore, if Mr. Obama attempts to circumvent Congress and enact gun-control measures via executive order, it is the duty of the US House of Representative to immediately issue articles of impeachment against him. It is past time for these so-called conservatives in the GOP to grow some man stuff and start taking their oaths to the Constitution seriously. It is when the legislators in Washington, D.C., and in the respective states refuse to protect the liberties of the American people that the people themselves must protect their liberties.

I think I speak for millions of Americans when I say I have had it with Obama, Feinstein, Scarborough, Morgan, and the rest of these would-be tyrants who want to strip us of our Natural right of self-defense–and that includes the right to defend ourselves from our own government.

At this juncture, let me inform readers that a brand new documentary film is about to be released to the public. The film is called “MOLON LABE: How The Second Amendment Guarantees America’s Freedom” produced by James Jaeger. This is the same man who produced the outstanding film released a few years ago called “The Spoiler.” MOLON LABE features such outstanding freedomists as Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Alex Jones, Stewart Rhodes, G. Edward Griffin, and Edwin Vieira, Jr. And, yes, I am in the film also. The film is scheduled to be rolled out next month. Whatever you do, be sure to watch this film and encourage everyone you know to watch it. Never has a film been more timely or more necessary.

By the way, MOLON LABE means “Come and take them.” This is what Spartan King Leonidas said to Persian King Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae when he was told to lay down his weapons.

To learn more about the film, go to:


Plus, it is not too late to become a sponsor of the film. Your donation could help awaken hundreds of thousands of Americans to the importance of the Second Amendment and its relevance to us today. Watch the trailer then consider becoming a sponsor.

Once again, the government’s denial of the people’s right of self-defense has led to the untimely deaths of a dozen innocent Americans. So, I say again: guns don’t kill people; gun-control laws kill people.

© Chuck Baldwin

Gun Control Capital Chicago Also Named Murder Capital of US, New York Runner Up
September 20 2013
by Dan Cannon
Share This Post
submit to reddit

As we’ve seen in recent shootings, taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only creates targets for those who would inflict harm and violence on others.

No cities in the United States have stricter gun laws than Chicago, New York and Washington DC.

This week the FBI has named Chicago the murder capital of the Unites States. In a city and state where firearms are as tightly regulated as some European countries, gun control advocates are left scratching their heads. . .


As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized. Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare, while successful defensive interventions against assaults on their lives and property are relatively commonplace.

National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. A Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws.”

Caroline Brewer of the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has reported that “The research we’ve seen indicates fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns.” Yet one can only wonder where they are getting that information. In reality, public support for personal gun ownership is growing. According to Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group that represents about 7,000 firearms manufacturers and related companies, in 1959 some 70% of the American public favored handgun bans, whereas today that number has flipped. This support is reflected in the marketplace. Sanetti observes that the $4.1 billion gun industry “has had nineteen months of growth in an otherwise anemic economy.”

Recognizing these positive trends, most states now issue permits allowing qualified law-abiding people to legally carry handguns outside their homes. Unprecedented numbers are becoming licensed to do so, now totaling an estimated 10 million Americans, contributing, in turn, to a dramatic growth in gun sales.

A record of more than 1.5 million background checks for customers looking to purchase a firearm were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Background Check (NICS) system last December. About one-third of these occurred during the six weeks before Christmas. They had previously recorded a 49% rise in background checks during the week before President Obama was elected in 2008 compared with the same week one year earlier.

The Brady lobby is upset that there has been no progress in leveraging tighter gun control legislation following the shooting January 8, 2010 rampage that killed 6 people and injured 13, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords. That tragic incident raised serious questions about background checks after it was determined that the accused shooter, having previously exhibited erratic behavior, legally purchased the weapon he “allegedly” used from a store.

The National Rifle Association clearly agrees that guns should not be sold to individuals found to have serious mental problems, although many states fail to provide mental health records to the federal computerized background check system. According to a November, 2011 report by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), 23 states have shown “major failures” in complying, and four (Alaska, Delaware, Idaho and Rhode Island) submit no records at all. (Although murder has been in decline in New York and other major cities for years, a Pepsi and Honda Super Bowl advertisement spot featured New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston’s Thomas Menino on a couch calling for stricter government measures to curb illegal gun sales.)

Dennis Henigan, the Brady group’s acting president, told Reuters: “Really it is a national disgrace that the only piece of gun-related legislation to come to a vote since Tucson was this legislation that would have enabled dangerous concealed carriers like Jared Loughner to carry their guns across state lines.” Referring to a proposed “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011″ (H.R. 822) which has passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate, the resolution would require states to recognize one another’s concealed carry permits the same way they recognize one another’s driver’s licenses. The intent is to eliminate confusion and potential legal problems for traveling gun owners.

As pointed out in a recent paper titled “Tough Targets” released by the Cato Institute, “The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. But authors Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett believe these restrictions put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage to criminals who acquire guns from underground markets since it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where intervention is urgently needed. They also document large numbers of crimes…murders, assaults, robberies…that are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns. . .



Posted: February 6, 2014 in Commentaries, Tips

By: Bailey Myers
December 23rd, 2013

Tallahassee FL- That beautiful Christmas tree in the living room may be attracting the wrong kind of attention. It’s part of the reason home invasions, burglaries, and robberies tend to go up this time of year.

We spoke with the Leon County Sheriff’s Office today and they told WCTV every year they have to increase patrols in neighborhoods hit by burglaries. This year is no different, but they did say there a few things you can do to ensure your homes safety.

Keeping your doors unlocked could make you a target for burglars. That is the first thing Leon County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Todd Lombardo explained, “One thing they can do is to lock their houses and their vehicles before when they are not attending them.”

Locking your door is the first step to protecting your home. The second is making sure everything else is secure. As one Tallahassee Home Depot employee explained, “They (burglars) usually don’t pay much attention to your door locks if they can get through your windows.”

Here are a few tips to prevent your home from becoming a target:
1. Reinforce your doors and windows with special brackets designed for windows, sliding glass doors or door handles.
2. Use a motion sensor light out side that goes off whenever something moves outside your home.
3. Equip doors and windows with loud beeping sensors.
4. Trim shrubbery surrounding the doors and windows of your home to create an easier view for neighbors to spot suspicious activity.

According to Lombardo, the best way to stop a burglary is to, “Talk to your neighbors talk to people tell them to keep a watch out if you are leaving town have somebody come check your house.”

Now these suggestions are no guarantee your home wont be a target but hopefully they will help protect your home.


Does the Second Amendment really protect gun rights?

Mary Katherine Morris
Mike ShanerBirmingham Libertarian Examiner

January 9, 2014

Constitution Check: Are there no limits on Second Amendment rights? This is the question Lyle Denniston posed to Yahoo readers today. Mr. Denniston’s self-serving answer is as dangerously delusional as the question is absurd.
The problem is, so many uninformed people share his misguided view of the constitution. Hopefully today we can dispel a few of the myths government worshipers salivate over, for example:

The only place that Americans can look for a binding interpretation of what the Constitution’s words mean – other than to the people acting through the amendment process to make a new constitutional declaration – are the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is so wrong on so many levels, but it is the most believed lie in all of American history. First, the Supreme Court is not the final arbitrator of the constitution…they evolved into this disgusting role thanks to Justice John Marshall establishing the precedent of judicial review, but time and popular opinion do not change the facts. The first place one should look when trying to interpret the constitution, another great source would be the federalist papers, and the most clarifying of all would be the ratifying debates. The constitution pretty clearly means what it says…not what politicians, Lyle Dennison, or the Supreme Court wants it to say. The Constitution is not a living breathing document whose meaning doesn’t change at societies whim. If the constitution needs to be updated in some way…well, we have what is known as an amendment process. If the document is simply out-dated and needs to be re-written, that is another debate, but we can’t just change words to make them suit our political fancy.

Perhaps the most ludicrous statement of the entire article is this:

The Second Amendment’s text, of course, does say that the right it protects “shall not be infringed.” Is that the same thing as saying that government may pass “no law respecting” gun rights?

Let us suppose that, constitutionally speaking, those two phrases do mean the same thing. But, as history has shown, there is flexibility in constitutional meaning: “No law,” for example, does not really mean “no law.”

Laugh out loud! So, cold means purple and juice is an island on Pluto? Absolutely “No Law,” means no law! He goes on to point out that the Supreme Court has shown “flexibility” in adhering to the original meaning of the constitution as justification for such an asinine statement, but as stated above…words really do mean what they mean. Just because the Supreme Court is wrong sometimes doesn’t mean we can just redefine anything we please on a whim.

It would be fruitless to answer him paragraph by paragraph as they all pretty much say the same thing: The Supreme Court has given the government the right to ignore the Constitution therefore they can constitutionally make unconstitutional laws against guns, speech, whatever…so long as it is ok with the majority of 9 unelected black robes.
The Supreme Court was actually invented to settle disputes between the states…not to re-write the constitution. Oh, and if you’re wondering who is actually the final arbitrator of the Constitution, it’s the states.

The Federal government was enumerated with a very specific and limited set of powers, everything not specifically mentioned was left to the several states and the people. So, no there are no limits on 2nd amendment rights.


20 Plus Schools in Ohio Make Changes to Allow Teachers and Administrators to Carry Guns to Protect Students
December 30, 2013 by Jonathan S.

– See more at:

People in the gun control crowd are always talking about “common sense” gun laws before they attempt to ram through laws that are nonsensical and do nothing to stop the ones actually committing the gun violence.

With many left-wing lawmakers pushing for more laws to stop the lawless after the Sandy Hook school shootings, there are reports that at least 20 schools in Ohio are allowing school administrators and teachers to carry guns in their schools.

According to Buckeye Firearms,

There are at least 20 different school districts in Ohio that have authorized individuals such as teachers, administrators and parents to carry firearms in schools. The list includes rural, urban and suburban schools. It includes public, private and parochial schools. It covers small, medium and large schools and all grade levels. Those authorized include teachers, administrators and others. In short, it is a cross section of Ohio, and the United States of America.

Some of these districts took quick action and had authorized people carrying soon after the Sandy Hook killings. Others waited until the start of the current school year. Many are considering expanding their program to include more people as they realize there is great upside potential and almost no downside issues with authorizing good people to carry the tools necessary to stop an active killer.

One third of our respondents indicated they had armed persons in their schools at least some of the time. Most of those are School Resource Officers (SRO) who are law enforcement officers with additional training to deal with school violence. Most SROs are assigned to a specific school, but many split their time between multiple schools. About 20% of respondents said their school is frequented by uniformed police officers. Others are visited by plain clothes officers or have space available as a remote office for police in their school. Anytime police are present in the building, kids are safer.

If only more lawmakers had the same common sense as these schools that have seen the obvious fact that active shooters in schools are stopped abruptly when a good guy with a gun shows up on the scene.

The extra 5 minutes it took the police to arrive at the Sandy Hook elementary school allowed the shooter to continue with his rampage. As soon as he was faced with good guys with guns he shot himself. The Arapahoe High School shooter was confronted with a good guy with a gun after only one minute. The result? He shot himself before continuing with his intended plan of a wide spread massacre.

Turning a school into a gun free zone does nothing but stop the good guys from stopping these massacres while the spineless creeps of this world see it as an open invitation to wreak havoc with minimal resistance.

Law enforcement cannot be everywhere, and allowing law abiding citizens to arm themselves in the defense of our school children was seen as a necessary thing by many schools who took the survey.

29% indicated that anyone who can pass the same shooting qualification as police should be able to carry, and 49% indicated that those authorized by the school board should be permitted to carry. Only one response indicated that no one should be able to have guns in schools.

The article went on to say,

Time is the most critical element of the response and ability to limit the death toll. Many districts have studied the facts and realized that authorizing the good people who are already in their school to carry firearms is the best return on their investment for school safety and security. Many other schools are realizing that this is no longer just a fringe idea. There is comfort in numbers. As more districts authorize individuals to carry firearms, neighboring districts are finding it more comfortable to follow that trend.

There will come a time when the number of schools with armed persons is equal to the number of schools with fire extinguishers. It’s not about guns anymore than it’s about fire extinguishers. It’s about safety. It is understandable that most schools didn’t want to be the first to authorize people to carry guns. It will be far worse for those forced to defend why they were last.

– See more at:

The term “home invasion” is especially distasteful because of the heinous crimes it can entail.

One’s home is supposed to be safe, secure and protective — a refuge from the often mean world around us.

A home invasion changes that balance, corrupts that safety zone, violates that privacy, destroys that trust.

Home invasion can — and often does — involve violence, sexual attack, robbery and intimidation. It can end in terrible injury, death, rape, inhumanity and other deviate conduct. Its victims are never the same again.

Such home invasions have been occurring disturbingly frequently in our capital city and its suburbs. Most recently, a mother and her daughter were beaten to death in their home in Westfield, just north of Indianapolis near Carmel. Not long before that, another mother and her daughter were beaten, robbed and sexually assaulted in one of Indianapolis’ better neighborhoods.

In both cases, men suspected of having committed those egregious crimes have been apprehended and charged. The popular sentiment is that, if found guilty, those men should be severely punished for the pain, suffering and inhumane indignity they perpetrated on their victims.

Among the hundreds of proposed laws that will be introduced in the 2014 Indiana General Assembly … is a bill that would significantly increase the penalty when firearms are used to commit violent crimes.

The premise is that when criminals resort to firearms in committing any crime, they deserve more punishment.

The proponent is State Sen. Jim Merritt, a Republican from Indianapolis with more than 20 years in the state Senate, who is reflecting his constituents’ fears about home invasions — fears, he has said, that lead some to answer a knock at the door with a locked-and-loaded firearm, as is a homeowner’s right.

Under current law, Indiana courts can add five years to a sentence for someone who used a firearm while committing a crime.

That’s too little and too indefinite for Merritt. He will be pushing a bill that, if passed, would extend that additional sentence from five years to a 20-year minimum.

He also wants to change can to must — to make the additional 20 years mandatory.

That would, of course, extend well beyond home invasions to other instances of violent crime such as murder, robbery, abduction and injury.

But the recent home invasion offenses so well illustrate the need.

They so offend all decent people’s sensitivities that the point is made clear that our courts need a stronger penalty, which we can only hope would be a stronger deterrent to indecent people who would so devalue human life that they would commit such crimes.

We hope Merritt’s bill gets approval from both houses of the legislature and an enthusiastic signature from Gov. Mike Pence so that its provisions can begin to give more muscle to laws against acts we all abhor.


Why opposition to gun control has increased over the last half-century




Economist Bryan Caplan notes that support for gun control — specifically, banning handguns or pistols — has decreased dramatically since the 1950s and 1960s. Back in 1959 Gallup reported that 60% of Americans favored banning possession of “pistols and revolvers,” while now 74% oppose banning “the possession of handguns,” except by police.

Caplan seems puzzled by this substantial change in opinion. I think it’s explainable by two developments.

(1) Violent crime roughly tripled between 1965 and 1975. As Caplan’s graph of Gallup’s results shows, majorities came to oppose handgun bans during this period. Americans saw more need to protect themselves.

(2) The success of laws permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons, starting with the Florida law in 1987 (thanks, Gov. Bob Martinez). Many, including me, predicted that this would lead to gunfights on the street and over traffic altercations. Those predictions have proved wrong. It turns out that ordinary citizens who can demonstrate that they know how to handle guns do so responsibly — just as they handle cars (potential weapons, after all) responsibly as well. The very few exceptions make news.
Now more than 40 states have such laws, and there is no significant move to repeal them. As a result, Americans no longer see gun possession as a threat and oppose disarming the law-abiding population. Pretty sensible, I think.


Shreveport homeowner speaks out about shooting of armed intruder

by Michael Doughty


Killing anyone — let alone a teenager — was the last thing Elzie Pipkins wanted to do when she bought a handgun at a local pawn shop days after a December burglary. But a few weeks later, on Sunday evening, Pipkins found herself using that weapon to defend herself and her family — ultimately taking the life of a 16-year-old holding her at gunpoint.

“I looked him dead in his eyes, like I’m looking at you, and I said, ‘Please, please, please don’t hurt us,”’ said a tearful Elzie Pipkins as she recounted shooting Devon Antonio Young as he attempted to rob Pipkins in her home.

“I was defending myself, my grandbaby and my great-grandson. We’re innocent people and he came up on us in the house with a loaded shotgun,” she said.

The 63-year-old great-grandmother lives alone, but serves as the matriarch of a large family and often cares for the youngest members. . .