Category Archives: Bill of Rights

Patriot Mark Robinson sets Greensboro City Council straight on gun rights, Youtube video, When are you going to stand up for the majority?, I’m the majority, Gun show controversy

Patriot Mark Robinson sets Greensboro City Council straight on gun rights, Youtube video, When are you going to stand up for the majority?, I’m the majority, Gun show controversy

“Weaker people, whether at school, at home or elsewhere are best protected from stronger people, with ill intent, by guns and proper security measures.”…Citizen Wells

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”…George Washington

 

Mark Robinson, a lifelong citizen of Greensboro, NC, gives an unscripted, from the heart speech about his gun rights and the ultimate safety of his family before the Greensboro City Council.

 

From the News & Observer.

“‘Come hell or high water,’ citizens will keep gun rights, NC man vows in viral video”

“A North Carolina man’s 4-minute take on gun laws echoed well beyond the city council chambers where he shared it Tuesday afternoon.

Greensboro resident Mark Robinson’s speech went viral after U.S. Rep. Mark Walker of North Carolina shared it on Facebook on Wednesday morning. By Friday, the clip had been viewed more than 3.2 million times.

Robinson spoke during a public comment period in which several people shared thoughts on a gun and knife show slated for late summer at the Greensboro Coliseum Complex.

Greensboro Mayor Nancy Vaughan previously proposed canceling the show in response to the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting that killed 17 people in February.”

“Robinson asked city leaders “when are you all going to start standing up for the majority?” – a group he said includes himself, as “a law-abiding citizen who’s never shot anybody, never committed a serious crime, never committed a felony.”

“I’ve never done anything like that, but it seems like every time we have one of these shootings, nobody wants to put the blame where it goes, which is at the shooter’s feet,” Robinson said at the meeting. “You want to put it at my feet.”

Robinson, who is black, is among the minority of male gun owners. Only 24 percent of non-white males said they owned a gun, while 48 percent of white men said they own a gun in 2017, making them the most likely demographic to own a gun, according to the Pew Research Center.

Robinson said he would turn in his guns if a new law required it, but said the law wouldn’t deter criminals from keeping their weapons.

“And guess who’s gonna to be the one that suffers? It’s gonna be me,” he said. “ … Our rights are the ones that are being taken away – that’s the reason why I came down here today. Gun show or no gun show, NRA or no NRA, I’m here to stand up for the law abiding citizens of this community.””

Read more:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article208049249.html

God bless Mr. Robinson.

I hope to meet him.

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Advertisements

Corrupt Obama Justice Dept sues NC over voter law, NC law does not discriminate, Law applies equally to all citizens, Revenge for NC rejecting Obama in 2012 elections?

Corrupt Obama Justice Dept sues NC over voter law, NC law does not discriminate, Law applies equally to all citizens, Revenge for NC rejecting Obama in 2012 elections?

“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”…Eric Holder’s US Justice Dept lawsuit against NC

“‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’”

“The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been preclearedby federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own”… Chief Justice Roberts, Shelby County, AL vs Holder, Attorney General, et al 

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

The corrupt Obama US Justice Dept. led by Obama’s pal Eric Holder is sueing the state of NC over its recent changes to the voter laws.

First of all I would like to thank Eric Holder for helping to highlight the impact of the Obama Administration on blacks in NC.
“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”

Eric Holder claims that the new NC voting law changes are discriminatory.

“Provisions of HB 589
23. HB 589 makes several significant changes to North Carolina’s election law. Among other changes, HB 589 alters existing law by reducing the number of early voting days available to voters, eliminating same-day voter registration during the early voting period, and prohibiting the counting of provisional ballots cast by voters who attempt to vote in their county, but outside their home precinct. HB 589 also imposes a new photo identification requirement for in-person voters.

“the discriminatory impact of photo identification requirements on minority voters, and the challenges people encounter in obtaining the underlying documentation needed to acquire the types of photo identification that would be required by the proposed law.”

“Implementation of HB 589 Will Have a Discriminatory Result”

“The reduction of the number of days of early voting and elimination of the first seven days of early voting, including the first weekend days of early voting, will have a discriminatory impact on African-American voters in North Carolina.”

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/646201393013723793555.pdf

Legal definition of discrimination.
“In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination

The NC voting laws are clearly not discriminatory. They apply equally to all citizens.

A fifth grader can understand that.

From Gateway Pundit September 30, 2013.

“So, will Holder sue the majority of US States?

  • 14 states allow straight party voting. North Carolina now joins the 36 other states that do not.
  • 15 states allow NO early voting or no-excuse absentee voting. (Those include NY and Mass)
  • 32 states allow early voting ranging from 4 days prior to election day to 45 days with an average 19 days. North Carolina allows 10 days but requires the same number of hours of early voting that was available in 2012 and 2010 when the early voting period was 17 days.
  • Only 1 state allows same day registration during early voting. NC was the only other state to allow this and has now joined 49 states in not allowing same day registration during early voting.
  • 11 states allow same day registration on Election Day. North Carolina does not.
  • 5 states allow 16 and 17 year olds to pre-register to vote. 45 states do not, including now, North Carolina.

Illinois and Delaware require voter ID. Hawaii has even stricter voter ID requirements. Why is Holder not suing those states?”

Read more:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/hyper-partisan-obama-doj-to-announce-suit-against-north-carolina-voting-laws/

FURTHERMORE

Even though the recent US Supreme Court decision in Shelby County, AL vs Holder, Attorney General, et al addressed the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the constitutional provisions giving the states most of election powers.

“Outside the strictures of the Supremacy Clause, States retain broad autonomy in structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. Amdt. 10. This “allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___
(2011) (slip op., at 9). But the federal balance “is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
More specifically, “‘the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 461–462 (1991) (quoting Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634, 647 (1973); some internal quotation marks omitted). Of course, the Federal Government retains significant control over federal elections. For instance, the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish the time and manner for electing Senators and Representatives. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; see also Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., ante, at 4–6. But States have “broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 91 (1965) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Arizona, ante, at 13–15. And “[e]ach State has the power to prescribe the qualifications of its officers and the manner in which they shall be chosen.” Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, 161 (1892). Drawing lines for congressional districts is likewise “primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.” Perry v. Perez, 565 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3)(internal quotation marks omitted).
Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the States. Northwest Austin, supra, at 203 (citing United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 16 (1960); Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845); and Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725–726 (1869); emphasis added). Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation “was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 567 (1911). Indeed, “the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized.” Id., at
580. Coyle concerned the admission of new States, and Katzenbach rejected the notion that the principle operated as a bar on differential treatment outside that context. 383 U. S., at 328–329. At the same time, as we made clear in Northwest Austin, the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. 557 U. S., at 203.
The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends “all changes to state election law—however innocuous—until they have been precleared by federal authorities in Washington, D. C.” Id., at 202. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own, subject of course to any injunction in a §2 action. The Attorney General has 60 days to object to a preclearance request,longer if he requests more information. See 28 CFR §§51.9, 51.37. If a State seeks preclearance from a three judge court, the process can take years.
And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and several additional counties). While one State waits months or years and expends funds to implement a validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the normal legislative process. Even if a non covered jurisdiction is sued, there are important differences between those proceedings and preclearance proceedings; the preclearance proceeding “not only switches the burden of proof to the supplicant jurisdiction, but also applies substantive standards quite different from those governing the rest of the nation.” 679 F. 3d, at 884 (Williams, J., dissenting) (case below).
All this explains why, when we first upheld the Act in 1966, we described it as “stringent” and “potent.” Katzen
bach, 383 U. S., at 308, 315, 337. We recognized that it“may have been an uncommon exercise of congressional power,” but concluded that “legislative measures not otherwise appropriate” could be justified by “exceptional conditions.” Id., at 334. We have since noted that the Act “authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policy making,” Lopez, 525 U. S., at 282, and represents an “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government,” Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 502 U. S. 491, 500–501 (1992). As we reiterated in Northwest Austin, the Act constitutes “extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system.” 557 U. S., at 211.”
Is this just another Obama administration race baiting move or retribution for NC rejecting Obama and the Democrat Party in 2012?
What a bunch of morons.
In their zeal to attack the state of NC they reveal the plight of blacks under Obama.
“According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the unemployment rate for non-Hispanic black residents in North Carolina was almost twice the rate for non-Hispanic white residents (19.2% compared to 10.5%).”
Thanks to commenter Jonah.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole AP phone subpoena, Cole represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Eric Holder friend, American public Obama or Saudis being protected?

Deputy Attorney General James Cole AP phone subpoena, Cole represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Eric Holder friend, American public Obama or Saudis being protected?

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”…Barack Obama

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed

–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially not insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent.”… Adolf Hitler

Deputy Attorney General James Cole was nominated by Barack Obama on December 29, 2010.

James Cole represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud.

From The Examiner June 16, 2010.

“Obama nominee defended Saudi terrorist”

“President Barack Obama’s nominee for the number two spot at the U.S. Justice Department served as a lawyer for the Saudi royals who helped finance the 9-11 terrorist attacks and raked in millions of dollars to “monitor” a collapsed insurance company that got a massive government bailout, according to a Washington, DC watchdog group.

According to public-interest group Judicial Watch, the president’s choice — James Cole — to be Deputy Attorney General believes that the Middle Eastern terrorists, who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, are simply domestic criminals who commit crimes such as rape and murder.

This should concern Americans since, as a ranking official at the Justice Department, Cole would play a lead role in decision-making involving terrorism arrests and prosecutions.

Known as a top criminal defense attorney in Washington, D.C. specializing in white-collar crime, Cole is a longtime friend of Attorney General Eric Holder, who served as deputy of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Division under Bill Clinton. It was Holder who brokered the deal to release terrorists who bombed office buildings and killed cops in New York City in the 1970s. The deal was made to garner votes for Clinton’s wife who was running for New York’s U.S. Senate seat.

Obama nominated Cole last month and the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings this week.

Cole has a shady history that contradicts the president’s assertion that “the American people will be well served by his integrity and commitment to the law,” according to Judicial Watch.

Cole represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud when insurance carriers and September 11 survivors sued him and others for financing terrorists. Treasury Department documents provided evidence of extensive financial support for Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family and Prince Naif ran the Al Haramain Foundation, a Saudi charity that diverted funds to Al-Qaeda before and after September 11, 2001.”

Read more:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-nominee-defended-saudi-terrorist

From the NY Times May 15, 2013.

“Justice Dept. Defends Seizure of Phone Records”

“Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Tuesday defended the Justice Department’s sweeping seizure of telephone records of Associated Press journalists, describing the article by The A.P. that prompted a criminal investigation as among “the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen” in a 35-year career.

“It put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole,” he said in an apparent reference to an article on May 7, 2012, that disclosed the foiling of a terrorist plot by Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen to bomb an airliner. “And trying to determine who was responsible for that, I think, required very aggressive action.”

In a statement in response, The A.P.’s president and chief executive, Gary Pruitt, disputed that the publication of the article endangered security.

“We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed,” he said. “Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.” Mr. Pruitt said the article was important in part because it refuted White House claims that there had been no Qaeda plots around the first anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

At a news conference at the Justice Department, Mr. Holder also disclosed that he recused himself last year from overseeing the case after F.B.I. agents interviewed him as part of their investigation. His deputy, James M. Cole, approved the subpoena seeking call records for 20 office and personal phone lines of A.P. reporters and editors.

Mr. Pruitt disclosed the seizure of the phone records on Monday in a letter to Mr. Holder protesting the action as overly broad and “a serious interference with A.P.’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news.”

But in a letter to The A.P. on Tuesday, Mr. Cole portrayed the search as justified and disputed a detail in the wire service’s account of the Justice Department action. While the news organization had said that records from “a full two-month period” had been taken, Mr. Cole said that the seizure covered only “a portion” of two calendar months.

“We understand your position that these subpoenas should have been more narrowly drawn, but in fact, consistent with Department policy, the subpoenas were limited in both time and scope,” he wrote. He added that “there was a basis to believe the numbers were associated with A.P. personnel involved in the reporting of classified information. The subpoenas were limited to a reasonable period of time and did not seek the content of any calls.””

“Lucy Dalglish, dean of the journalism school at the University of Maryland, criticized the Justice Department’s broad seizure of phone records, saying it would chill the ability of reporters to report the news. The subpoena came against the backdrop of six prosecutions of officials in leak-related cases under President Obama — twice the number prosecuted under all previous presidents combined.

“The message is loud and clear that if you work for the federal government and talk to a reporter that we will find you,” she said.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/politics/attorney-general-defends-seizure-of-journalists-phone-records.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&

We now know from the Benghazi talking point memos that references to Islamic extremists with ties to Al-Qa’ida was scrubbed by the Obama Administration.

So who was Mr. Cole protecting?

The american public, Obama or the Saudis?

Attorney General Eric Holder states no, Constitution allow a US citizen on US soil to be killed by a drone?, No imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm

Attorney General Eric Holder states no, Constitution allow a US citizen on US soil to be killed by a drone?, No imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm

“In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”…Obama DOJ Memo

“I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”…Barack Obama

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”…George Washington 

From Mediaite March 6, 2013.

“Ted Cruz Goads Eric Holder Into Admitting That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional”

“On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sent shockwaves through the nation when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in writing that the White House would be within its legal authority to execute an American citizen via drone on U.S. soil if that person was determined to pose a threat to national security. On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate panel, Holder was prodded repeatedly about this assertion by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Holder eventually admitted that it would not be constitutional to execute an American citizen without due process.

“In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder pointedly.

“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an “imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm,” but that person is suspected to be a terrorist.

“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force,” Holder replied.”

““You keep saying appropriate – my question isn’t about propriety,” Cruz goaded. “My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”

When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.”

Watch video:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ted-cruz-goads-eric-holder-into-admitting-that-killing-americans-with-drones-on-u-s-soil-is-unconstitutional/

Gun Companies Boycott Anti Gun States over 700% in 1 Week, Firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies, Second Amendment protects citizens

Gun Companies Boycott Anti Gun States over 700% in 1 Week, Firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies, Second Amendment protects citizens

“Liberals, lacking accountability for their failed policies, and reason for their irrational fear of guns, blame guns and conservatives for gun violence.”…Citizen Wells

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”…George Washington

 

From Freedom Outpost February 23, 2013.

“Gun Companies Boycotting Law Enforcement In Anti-Gun States Grow By More Than 700% In 1 Week”

“The list of companies that have decided to stop selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies, in states that are hostile to the Second Amendment and putting forth gun control legislation, is growing and has grown more than seven times the number that I informed you about one week ago today.

Previously I listed the following companies:

Now the list has expanded to include:

Jeffrey Norton, of Norton Firearms, issued a statement on the company’s website:

Norton Firearms, Inc. is a strong defender of the US Constitution, not only the 2nd amendment. We believe that a government that restricts it Citizens from executing their Constitutional Rights is no longer a government for the people or by the people. It is our policy not to sell our products or services to any organization that tries to diminish the rights given to us by our US Constitution and our Creator. If you are a government agency with a policy of restricting our Constitutional Rights we ask that you take our tax dollars and spend it somewhere else. I am sure there is some profiteering communist foreign company that will be glad to take our dollars for their gain. We will only sell to law abiding, Citizens and those agencies that truly support and will defend The US Constitution.”

Read more:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/gun-companies-boycotting-law-enforcement-in-anti-gun-states-grow-by-more-than-700-in-1-week/#ixzz2LovHPlU1

Schools need guns and better security, Sandy Hook fathers speak out, Gun laws not needed, Security existing law enforcement civility, Chicago gun laws failed

Schools need guns and better security, Sandy Hook fathers speak out, Gun laws not needed, Security existing law enforcement civility, Chicago gun laws failed

“Weaker people, whether at school, at home or elsewhere are best protected from stronger people, with ill intent, by guns and proper security measures.”…Citizen Wells

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”…George Washington

Guns are not the problem, they are part of the solution.

The problem is a lack of prioritizing, in many cases by educators as well as society, who have failed in their duties to protect our children. Security has not been a high enough priority in our schools.

From Citizen Wells January 16, 2013.

“Gun control has never worked and never will work. It is the solution of dictators and those lacking reason and accountability.

We secure our businesses with armed guards and security cameras. Rational and responsible members of society protect their families with security systems and weapons. Why have we not protected our schools?

Focusing on gun control is a knee jerk reaction that does not work and does not address the real issues of protecting our children.”

“Elementary and Kindergarten aged children are the most vulnerable and should receive the most protection. Here are some common sense based remedies that will greatly improve the security for these children.

1. Monitor the areas outside the buildings. This would include monitored security cameras and some combination of walk arounds by staff and or security personnel.

2. Security alarms for illegal entry.

3. Buffered entry ways. i.e. double entry ways. The first door should set off the alarm and the second would slow down intrusion.

4. Stronger doorways.

5. Regular drills for emergency preparedness. We had those when I was in grade school.

6. As many armed school personnel as possible. “Good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns.” Each armed person should be psychologically evaluated.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/secure-schools-not-empower-criminals-gun-control-does-not-protect-children-sandy-hook-poorly-prepared-ct-strict-gun-laws-failed-keep-criminals-and-insane-away-from-buildings/

Two of the father’s of Sandy Hook children have spoken out . One lost his child. The other knows that he could have as well.

I have the utmost respect for these two fathers. They have spoken the truth.

From The Blaze January 28, 2013.

“THE PROBLEM IS NOT GUN LAWS”

“Mark Mattioli, whose six-year-old son James perished inside of the school, testified that a plethora of new gun laws isn’t the answer and that, instead, personal responsibility, accountability and civility are the best path forward. He made his comments as intense debate surrounding gun control and the causal factors behind the shooting continue to be at the forefront of public discussion.

The grieving father, who ended up receiving a standing ovation, said that he believes in “simple, few gun laws” and that there are already “more than enough on the books.” Mattioli contends that “the problem is not gun laws” and that these regulations simply need to be enforced.

“How do we expect to have any impact on a society and say, ‘We’re going to pass a law. Hey this is inexcusable. We can’t allow any more of this. Let’s pass a law that will change the course of the future’  when we don’t enforce the laws that we have on the books — the most important laws?”

Read more and watch his speech:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/28/the-problem-is-not-gun-laws-watch-the-emotional-speech-by-a-sandy-hook-victims-dad-that-got-a-standing-ovation/

From Freedom Outpost February 3, 2012.

“Sandy Hook Student’s Father: You’ll Have To Take My Gun From My Cold Dead Hands!”

“A father of a Sandy Hook Elementary School student testified on January 28, 2013 in a Working Group Public Hearing at the Connecticut State Capitol on gun violence prevention. While Bill Stevens’ fifth grade daughter was not harmed in the incident, she was a part of the children that were in “lock down” during the shooting and following it. However, Mr. Stevens said that his daughter’s friend’s little sister was once of the children that was murdered, “when 911 and ‘lock down’ were not enough to protect her from an evil person, not protect her from an ‘assault rifle’ or some type of an inanimate object, but from an evil person.”

In speaking to those listening, Stevens said that the security at the school was “quite different from the elaborate security you all enjoy here at the Capitol.””

“He also pointed out that gun ownership is a right and should not make gun owners suspect simply because of the numbers or kinds of guns they own or even how much ammunition they have.

“My guns are not dangerous,” Stevens said. “They are at home, locked up, collecting dust and cat hair.”

“But criminals and tyrants,” he continued, “tyrants especially, beware, ‘lock down’ is not an option at the Stevens’ residence and 911 will be dialed after the security of my home has been established!”

Stevens asked, “Why is that same security that my daughter enjoys at home with her dad not available at school in Newtown? That is what you should be considering, not making her dad a criminal.”

“Charleton Heston mad the phrase, ‘From my cold dead hands’ famous,” Stevens thundered. “And I will tell you here today, you will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands!””

Read more and watch his speech:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/sandy-hook-students-father-youll-have-to-take-my-gun-from-my-cold-dead-hands/

Piers Morgan educated by 22 year old lady on guns, Feinstein is no Einstein, Obama left et al ignorant and hypocrites, Guns protect innocent from criminals and crazies

Piers Morgan educated by 22 year old lady on guns, Feinstein is no Einstein, Obama left et al ignorant and hypocrites, Guns protect innocent from criminals and crazies

“Dianne Feinstein is no Einstein but she is a hypocrite.”…Citizen Wells

“Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”…Albert Einstein

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”…Heinrich Himmler

Dianne Feinstein and Albert Einstein both have Jewish ancestry.

Anyone who is Jewish and is for gun control is a damned fool.

However, Feinstein just wants gun control for you. She has a concealed weapon permit and her new bill exempts government employees.

Obama’s children have armed guards.

From WND January 28, 2013.

“22-YEAR-OLD EDUCATES PIERS MORGAN ON GUNS”

“CNN host Piers Morgan’s push for a ban on so-called “assault” weapons has led him to confront a host of gun-rights advocates on his program, including Republican Newt Gingrich and Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt, who Morgan actually blasted as “an unbelievably stupid man” for disagreeing with him.

Which makes the response of a pair of young women on Morgan’s program all the more noteworthy.

Aubrey Blankenship and Celia Bigelow are part of the leadership team of the national conservative organization American Majority Action and had recently written together a column in National Review online about why young women prefer the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle with 30-round magazines for self-defense.

“In the wake of mass murders like Sandy Hook and the horrific rapes and murders of thousands of women each year,” the ladies explained in their column, “pepper spray, mace or five-round handheld pistols aren’t going to cut it.”

Morgan, however, challenged the women when they were guests on his show last week: “One of my arguments against guns is you don’t need assault weapons for self-defense. … Explain to me why you believe you need an AR-15 style assault rifle.”

“One, they’re lightweight,” the 22-year-old Bigelow responded. “They’re quite accurate. I can shoot them much more accurately than a handgun or a shotgun. And three … I want a gun that can hold a lot of ammo, because if I’m faced with an intruder or multiple intruders that come into my home, I want to make sure I have enough ammo to get the job done, especially if they’re armed. … I don’t have to take the time to reload.”

Bigelow also brought up an example: “We saw a situation in Georgia just a couple weeks ago where a mom was hiding in her attic with her two children when an intruder entered her home. She had a handgun that only had six rounds in it. She fired all six rounds, missed the intruder once, hit him five times in the face and in the neck. And he still lived.”

That’s when Morgan repeated a line of questioning he had used with other guests – including Gingrich – who for the most part had failed to present a significant answer.

“How many of the three million Americans that own AR-15s have ever used them to defend themselves at home?” Morgan asked.

“There are … many examples,” Bigelow countered, “but are the media willing to cover them?”

“Do you know one?” Morgan persisted.

Gingrich had botched that same question, suggesting he would do some research and get back to Morgan on it.

The ladies, however, were prepared.

“Yes, absolutely,” Bigelow responded. “In 2010, in Houston, Texas, there was a 15-year-old boy alone at home. And he was – he was home alone with his 12-year-old sister when two intruders tried to enter in the front door and in the back door of his house. He grabbed his AR-15 and shot at them and they ran away.”

Bigelow’s summary of the June 2010 news story in Houston was, in fact, accurate.”

Read more:

 http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/22-year-old-schools-piers-morgan-on-guns/#Q8Tk0FDhzmK7huHv.99