Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Go To Hell Harry Reid and Dianne Feinswine



This man needs to be removed from office for the direct and intentional offense of attempting to define the victim of a crime as a federal felon.

Senate Bill 649 says (Look for S.649 in the bill number)
(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end--
'(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.'.
(b) Penalty- Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following.
'(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (q), or (aa) of section 922;'.
And if you follow the reference:
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
A person who has their firearms stolen is the victim of a crime.  To impose upon them the affirmative duty to report same to the Attorney General is an outrage.  These people are not criminals, they are victims in that their property has been taken unlawfully.

This will lead to thousands of annual prosecutions of people who are claimed not have not reported "within 24 hours" their "alleged knowledge" of the theft.  While there are certainly times that knowledge is obvious, such as when someone tears your gun safe off the concrete floor and rips a hole in the room in which it was formerly present to do so, a huge number of firearms are stolen without the person who has them taken being immediately aware of it.

This law explicitly authorizes and promotes political prosecutions where the exact time of the offense cannot be ascertained but the person has "allegedly" failed to so-report.

The traitorous jackasses in the Senate who support this crap need to be removed from office and imprisoned for attempting to define victims of criminal acts as felons.

But the assault does not stop there.

Oh no.

This bill goes far further and effectively bans lawful gun retailing!

I wondered why they were talking about "Straw Purchasers" in their news releases when straw purchasing is already illegal and exposes the person who does so to severe criminal penalties.

The reason is that now they intend to steal all property involved in the straw purchase even for an unaware participant -- such as a gun store where a straw purchase takes place!
'(a)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of section 932 or 933 shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law--
'(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
'(B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
Note the language. Not only will this be construed to steal the house, vehicle and other property of both the straw purchaser and the ultimate recipient as-written it can and probably will also be construed to attack a retailer who has an employee that is involved in such a transaction. 

If you didn't understand Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell's filibuster intent (along with others) you should now understand it quite-clearly.  Not only is there an attempt to define the victims of a crime as federal felons in this piece of blatantly unconstitutional trash but in addition there is a thinly-veiled attack upon lawful firearms retailers in the form of forfeiture provisions that can be (and presumably will be) easily abused to seize property upon the flimsiest of pretext.

Adam Lanza & Gang Welcome Here

Via Ninety Miles From Tyranny

Flashbang Bra Holster (This is a buy)

Via Knuckledraggin' My Life Away

Kindness of Dixie @ Gun Goddess

Dear Scalawag Rawls,

From: Beal, Dennis W.
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:58 AM
To: ''
Subject: Membership in the MOC

Mr Rawls:

I am responding to your reply to my letter, and want to thank you for responding. Please excuse the e-mail response.

A few weeks ago I wrote you a letter expressing my complete and total disdain for your decision a year ago to not display the battleflag on the museum grounds. I cancelled my membership to the MOC, after many years, as a result of your decision.

In your letter to me, you lamented on your long and storied ancestral past with regards to the Confederacy and you cited your life membership in the SCV as some sort of legitimization of your convictions and the policy that has resulted in you dishonoring our ancestors by condoning and leading the effort to disregard their battlefield symbol that distinguished them from the enemy. I  quite frankly found your response and justification nothing more than hyperbolas tripe.

I will support the new SCV sponsored Confederate Museum with my annual $1000 per year donation, but I will not support in any way an organization that so blatantly and callously dismisses the memory and sacrifices of our southern veterans. Mr. Rawls, your decision was and is wrong and it has cost the MOC dearly.

Your completely inappropriate and unwarranted policy to exclude this most storied symbol will also result in me, as the Chief of Staff of the 3000 men in the Texas Division SCV, using all of my lobbying power at my disposal to persuade my fellow compatriots not only in Texas but throughout the confederation to cancel their memberships and not support the MOC.      

It is regrettable that I had to make this decision especially in light of it being entirely avoidable but for a poorly thought out and careless decision by you and the MOC board of directors.


Dennis W. Beal, Colonel USMC (ret)

Are YOU mad enough yet?

Boycott the Museum of the Confederacy. Cancel your membership....and tell them WHY!

Virginia Flaggers

Obama's Curve Ball

Via Daily Timewaster

Rand Paul Says America Needs A "Spiritual Cleansing"

Via Michael 

 Senator Rand Paul: “I think it’s important that people know that for the country to get better it needs more than just politicians. Politicians aren’t enough and it needs resurgence through churches, through revivals through a spiritual cleansing of the people."

Senator Rand Paul: “Changing a particular law is not going to make us a better people but that comes from the people themselves.”

Senator Rand Paul: “I don’t want people to think that salvation comes through elected leaders. It doesn’t.”

Senator Rand Paul:  “What’s the number one cause of poverty in America? It’s having kids before you’re married. Can you have a law to prevent that? I don't think any law even if you did have a law couldn't prevent it from happening. We have to convince kids that it's a big huge mistake not only from a religious point of view but from an economic point of view that it's not a good idea to have kids before you're married. The hard part is then people say you’re harsh and you’re against single moms. Well, I’m not against single moms. I just want to talk to them before they become the single mom. I want to talk to them when they’re 17 years old and convince them wait, get married and your life will be better and it’s a better way to do things.”

Senator Rand Paul: "People say you shouldn't talk about moral issues. Well, I think there are moral issues that no law will be able to fix but there's no reason why a political leader can't also have some impact in moral issues that really the law may not be able to fix but maybe by me saying that the marriage unit, the marriage unit, the family unit is an important structure, it's been with us for thousands of years and we shouldn't give up on that."

Impatient But Determined Northern Economic Forces Cause War

 Ransom, Honorable Matt W.
 Matt W. Ransom, Confederate General From North Carolina
(His great grandson and I were childhood friends.) 

Lincoln as president-elect had ample opportunity to tour the South to better understand the region, as well as chastise the fanatic abolitionists who fueled the secessionist impulses of the South. He did neither, and after his unconstitutional call for troops to war upon a State, gave North Carolina Unionists no alternative but to join their brethren in a more perfect union.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

Impatient But Determined Northern Economic Forces Cause War:

“Appealing to his constituents on a platform which included a protective tariff, internal improvements, free homesteads to free-soilers, and limiting slavery to its current borders, Abraham Lincoln won the presidency by pulling in the electoral votes of all the Northern States with the exception of New Jersey.  In ten Southern States he pulled no votes at all and consequently had no electors from that section. The national voting performance indicated that Lincoln drew considerably fewer votes than the total number of ballots cast for his three rivals, Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell.

In searching for solutions to the troubling problems following the national elections, alert citizens wanted to know more about the kind of program the new president intended to implement during his administration. To effectively counter secession arguments, Southern Unionists needed answers to vital questions – answers only the president-elect could give. 

Reflecting the anxiety of many was North Carolina Congressman John A. Gilmer’s letter of December 10, 1860, to Lincoln….[that] before assuming his high office, should “give the people of the United States the views and opinions you now entertain on certain public questions now so seriously distract[ing] the country.” 

Lincoln, in his return letter….chose to continue his policy of silence relative to his pending administration. Giving assurance he did not intend to interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia, [and] seemed to imply flexibility “on everything except the territorial question, and on this he would not yield.”

To those citizens both North and South who were thoroughly convinced that slavery extension existed more in theory than in fact, the president-elect’s position bordered on absurdity. In truth, the plantation system was not destined to expand into any existing territories of the United States. The territory of New Mexico, for ten years open to settlement by slaveholders, recorded not one slave in the census of 1860.  Colorado and Nevada were likewise without slaves. A few bondage blacks were to be found in Utah, and for the same year, census statistics indicated that two slaves resided in all of Kansas.

Thoughtful observers knew it would be a tragic mistake for Lincoln to proceed without a thorough understanding of the present South, reflecting the conditions brought on by a decade of intense and often bitter sectional rivalry with the North. Republican leaders, convinced as they were that an inevitable climax to the slavery issue was drawing near, surely would not overlook the strong likelihood that resolution was not attainable without secession and war.

Also, might certain essential observations have escaped Lincoln in his firm belief that there still remained throughout the South a strong residue of Union support and loyalty? In truth, Union sentiment in the region was much weaker than it had been in years past. The loyalty that had made North Carolinians proud to send James K. Polk to the presidency had now been supplanted by new and disturbing sensations. 

For reasons valid or otherwise, there was furthermore a persistent suspicion that selfish and sinister forces were behind or perhaps a part of the Northern anti-slavery movement. If an irrepressible conflict lay ahead, as contended by some, how accurate was it to conclude that black people held in forced labor were the major cause of this impending crisis?  

Tariffs revised upward, a national government favorable to the industrialization and capital investments so essential to expanding industry and commerce – these and related matters occupied the attention of Northern entrepreneurs and political leaders.  Could it be that when spokesmen for these special interests lashed out critically against slavery, very often their zeal was intended not so much to liberate unfortunate black people as to obliterate the political power of the region in which they resided?

Was not the South – represented by its phalanx of representatives in Congress, by its dominance of the Supreme Court and almost continuous control of the executive branch, and by its agriculturally-oriented society….the real target of North attacks?  Until this establishment was dismantled, impatient but determined Northern economic forces would continue to be held in check.  So why not strike at the South’s Achilles’ heel by mounting a convincing humanitarian campaign against its “peculiar” institution?”  

(Matt W. Ransom, Confederate General From North Carolina, Clayton C. Marlow, McFarland & Company, 1996, pp. 3-5)

Oppose All New Gun Control Legislation!


For supporters of our Right to Bear Arms, this headline from Congressional Quarterly today is alarming: "Senate Momentum Shifting in Favor of Gun Control Legislation."

This article went on to say: "Momentum swung sharply Wednesday behind the most ambitious gun control legislation to reach the Senate floor in nearly two decades, as negotiators in both parties announced eleventh-hour deals on background checks and gun trafficking."

Yesterday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said: "It will take a little bit of time but as I've said for months now, the American people deserve a vote on background checks, on federal trafficking, on safety in school, on the size of clips, and on, yes, assault weapons."

Reid will attempt to introduce gun control legislation, S. 649, tomorrow morning (April 11) on the Senate floor. Senator Rand Paul has vowed to filibuster to stop the Senate from beginning debate on Reid's bill. Twelve GOP senators have signed a letter of support for Paul's planned filibuster, saying: "We will oppose the motion to proceed on any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions."

The twelve Republican senators who publicly support Paul's filibuster are: Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio of Florida, Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts of Kansas, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Jim Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho, and Dan Coats of Indiana.

Reid will need 60 votes to proceed to debate the new gun control legislation. Forty-one votes can stop him, at least temporarily.

Click here to contact your senators immediately by email and let them know that you "Stand with Rand" and his filibuster of Reid's gun control bill. Also tell them that you are opposed to any new gun control legislation, period.

Click here for your senators' phone numbers. Give them a call by mid-morning tomorrow (April 11) with the same message.


Your Friends at The John Birch Society

Immigration and the American Worker

Via Mike


George J. Borjas has been described by both Business Week and the Wall Street Journal as “America’s leading immigration economist”. He is the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is the recipient of the 2011 IZA Prize in Labor Economics. Professor Borjas is also a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a Research Fellow at IZA. Professor Borjas is the author of several books, including Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy (Princeton University Press, 1999), and the widely used textbook Labor Economics (McGraw-Hill, 2012), now in its sixth edition. He has published over125 articles in books and scholarly journals. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1975.

Executive Summary

At current levels of around one million immigrants per year, immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) significantly larger, with almost all of this increase in GDP accruing to the immigrants themselves as a payment for their labor services.
For American workers, immigration is primarily a redistributive policy. Economic theory predicts that immigration will redistribute income by lowering the wages of competing American workers and increasing the wages of complementary American workers as well as profits for business owners and other “users” of immigrant labor. Although the overall net impact on the native-born is small, the loss or gain for particular groups of the population can be substantial.
The best empirical research that tries to examine what has actually happened in the U.S. labor market aligns well with economy theory: An increase in the number of workers leads to lower wages. This report focuses on the labor market impact of immigration.
Immigration also has a fiscal impact — taxes paid by immigrants minus the costs they create for government. The fiscal impact is a separate question from the labor market impact. This report does not address the size of the fiscal impact.
The Standard “Textbook” Model

The Migration Equation: Big Business+Big Agriculture+Big Labor+Big Religion=Big Immigration

Via Mike


If, as they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows, then immigration politics in today's America makes for absolutely bizarre bedfellows.

Business and agriculture rarely have anything useful to say about unionization and the labor movement. Conversely, labor leaders routinely disparage employers, whether in business or agriculture, for their views on wages, benefits, and employee working conditions. And religious leaders frequently shun involvement in such earthly matters, preferring instead to focus on the moral health of their flock and the nation as a whole.

And yet despite these profound differences, a loose coalition of representatives from business, agriculture, labor, and religious organizations have come together to press for "comprehensive immigration reform" with the administration and with leaders in both houses of Congress.

As these representatives envision it, such reform would take at least three prongs: first, they endorse a broad-based amnesty of the plus-or-minus 11 million aliens illegally in the country; second, they endorse a guestworker program of substantial size for unskilled workers; and third, they endorse a variety of programs that would open the doors to admit large numbers of foreign workers in information technology and certain other skilled professions.


More @ CIS

Public university art students forced to design anti-gun propaganda

An assistant professor of art and graphic design at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, Texas is under investigation for allegedly forcing graphic design students to create anti-gun artwork for her own personal crusade against firearms.

Campus Reform broke the story and confirmed that officials at the public, taxpayer-supported school launched an investigation after receiving a student’s official complaint last week.

According to the complaint, the professor, Jennifer Yucus, required students to produce posters in opposition to certain gun-friendly legislation currently making its way through the Texas state legislature.

“Several of my classmates were uncomfortable with the assignment and either quietly or openly expressed this,” reads the complaint. “Professor Yucus asked students to rationalize objections by thinking of it as a job from an employer (or words to that effect).”
But, wait. It gets better. Yucus allegedly exploited the student-created artwork to advertise an anti-gun petition called “MSU is anti-Concealed Carry on Campus.” She also made students put the URL to her petition on their original art.

Again: US Army Officer Describes Mainstream Christian Groups as Extremists

Via avordvet

A face to remember.

Last week we reported on the Army EEO briefing that described evangelical Christians and Catholics as “extremists” alongside the likes of the KKK and al Qaeda. That incident occurred in Pennsylvania. Today, Todd Starnes reports that an Army officer at Ft. Campbell, KY sent an email to subordinates using similar descriptions and epithets.
“Just want to ensure everyone is somewhat educated on some of the groups out there that do not share our Army Values,” read an email from LTC Jack Rich to three dozen subordinates at Fort Campbell in Kentucky. “When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values, don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem.”
Among the groups that LTC Rich says “do not share our Army Values” in his 14-page email are the Family Research Council and the American Family Association.
“The religious right in America has employed a variety of strategies in its efforts to beat back the increasingly confident gay rights movement,” the officer wrote. “One of those has been defamation.”
The officer accused the “Christian Right” of “engaging in the crudest type of name-calling, describing LGBT people as ‘perverts” with ‘filthy habits’ who seek to snatch the children of straight parents and ‘convert’ them to gay sex,” he wrote.
Name calling goes both ways in politics. It’s routine for leftists to insult Christians in a variety of ways. The “religious right” is itself meant as an insult now. Apparently that’s fine with Army Values, as those insults are not singled out for criticism.
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, now an executive vice president of the FRC, told Fox News that all Americans should be concerned about the contents of the email.
“If this is the action of a single Army lieutenant colonel, it needs to be investigated,” he said. “On the other hand, if what he reflects is a shifting policy or attitude of the Army or DOD, then I think it is a much bigger issue.”
More @ PJ Tatler

Spring 2013 NC PATCON Grand Door Prize: 308 scoped Mossberg

                                                                  308 scoped Mossberg 

                                                                 Donated by NCPATCON

 Thursday May 2nd to Monday May 6th

NC Parental Rights Bill Seeks Cosponsors


House Bill 711 was filed today in the North Carolina General Assembly to define and protect parental rights in statutory law. Representatives Carl Ford (R-76) and Larry Pittman (R-82) introduced the measure with three additional original cosponsors (Reps. Jones, Jordan, and Speciale), and have until 5:00 p.m. Friday to collect any additional cosponsors. We would ask you to contact your representative today and ask that he or she also sign on to cosponsor HB 711.

Please take a moment to email your representative in the General Assembly and give them the following message (in whole or in part) in your own words: 

“The right of parents to shape the upbringing of their child may be the most important issue you will handle this year, even if its implications are not immediately apparent. We need to see those rights protected for this and future generations. Please support that right to the fullest extent, and start by signing on to cosponsor HB 711. This bill will take the existing court standard on parental rights and codify it in statutory law so that it cannot change with shifting ideologies in the judiciary. Please cosponsor HB 711 before this Friday’s deadline. It is now available on the Dashboard. 

Thank you.”

To contact your lawmaker, visit this page and follow the instructions there. You will be asked to enter your address (or just click the map), then click on the pop-up link to find your lawmaker’s contact information. You may call with your request, but emails are preferred at this time. Again, mention that HB 711 is now available for cosponsors on the Dashboard.
HB 711 mirrors laws enacted in other states and the legal standard already practiced in North Carolina’s courts. It would define the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children. It requires all statutes, local ordinance or regulation to honor that right unless there is a compelling governmental interest not to.

In the event parents have to go to court to seek protection of their rights against government intrusion, courts first must decide whether the right is fundamental. If the judge decides the right is not fundamental, then the government can infringe the right as long as its purpose in doing so is “rational.” But if the judge decides the right is fundamental, the government may infringe on the right only when there is a “compelling” reason to do so and there is no other way for the government to fulfill that purpose.

As of today, there is nothing in North Carolina statutes or the state Constitution enunciating that parental rights are fundamental. The U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally ruled that parental rights are fundamental, but their latest ruling has produced confusion and ambiguity on the subject. Although North Carolina courts have generally been good in recognizing parental rights, it is risky to depend on future court decisions to safeguard a fundamental parental right. This is the problem HB 711 will solve; it will simply give much better protection to parental rights than currently exists in North Carolina law.

Opponents of a parental rights law often incorrectly assume that it would give parents a right to abuse their children. This is incorrect. Parents don’t have a right to abuse or neglect their children under North Carolina law, and that will not change with the passage of HB 711. Rather, this law will simply provide an additional layer of protection afforded through legislative enactment to safeguard parents and children from intrusion by the government into the decision making process within the family unit.

Thank you for standing with us in championing the cause of parental rights in North Carolina!


Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

20,000 U.S. M-16s stolen from unguarded warehouse in Kuwait

Via Craig



ABU DHABI — Kuwait has reported the theft of a massive amount of U.S. Weapons.

The Interior Ministry said thieves broke into a warehouse and stole a huge amount of firearms and ammunition. The ministry said 20,000 U.S.-origin M-16 assault rifles and 15,000 rounds for 9mm pistols were stolen.

“There were no guards during the break-in,” the ministry said on April

The ministry said the target was a warehouse of the Interior Ministry in Subiya. The statement said thieves broke three doors and removed the entire contents of the warehouse. Kuwait has been a major defense client of the United States.

The U.S. military has stationed some 13,000 troops, most of them assigned to logistics, to the Gulf Cooperation Council sheikdom.

Senator Jeff Sessions: “The Best We’ve Got.”

Via Billy
 Senator Jeff Sessions: “The Best We’ve Got.”

As the approaching Amnesty/ Immigration Surge beast bears down on America, Senator Jeff Sessions is stepping up his game. While many in the GOP seem to be fearfully hunkering down and parsing their words (lest the Open Borders media notice a tiny misstep), the Alabama Senator has been a one-man watchdog.
Consider his recent actions:
Senator Dave Vitter (R-La.) responded to a rhetorical question from Sessions about the history of immigration enforcement legislation:
No single major promise has been kept, whether it’s the fence, whether it’s the US-Visit program, whether it’s the overall promise of enforcement in 1986, none of those promises have been kept.
  • In late February, Sessions condemned the Obama Administration’s sequester-based release of detainees slated for deportation as an action that would “undermine the rule of law and endanger the public safety.”  (Press release, Feb 26)
  • Last July, Senator Sessions held a press conference to focus on how the Administration has hamstrung the Border Patrol in performing its basic function of apprehending illegal border crossers. He noted: 
More @ VDARE

Gov. Perry: Low Taxes, Less Regulation Key to 'Texas Miracle'

Texas Gov. Rick Perry tells Newsmax that he attributes the “Texas Miracle” — the Lone Star State’s relatively robust economy during the economic downturn — to a “light” tax burden and a favorable regulatory climate.

The 2012 Republican presidential candidate also says he is turning down federal money for Medicaid expansion in Texas because he doesn’t “trust” the federal government and is certain the states will be left holding the bill.

Perry took office in 2000 and is the longest-serving governor in Texas history. He sat down with Newsmax TV for an exclusive interview at the International Economic Forum of the Americas in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Monday.

Discussing the so-called Texas Miracle, Perry states: “We’ve been up and down. You can’t be the number one exporting state in the nation as we are for the last 11 years and not be impacted by a global economy. From the end of 2008 through 2010 was a very difficult period of time for Texas. We just didn’t have as difficult a time as other economies.

“The men and women in Texas know something now after a decade-plus of our governorship and our policies being implemented by a Republican House, Senate, lieutenant governor and speaker. We’ve kept our tax burden as light as we could and still delivered the services that the people of Texas desire, and we have a regulatory climate that is fair and predictable.I cannot tell you how important is predictability and stability in the regulatory climate.

“And then we passed some of the most sweeping tort reform in the nation in 2003.

More @ Newsmax

Turncoat Repubs threaten to sell-out gun owners to Reid-CALL NOW!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims he is now prepared to bring S. 649, the latest "universal background check" (read that "registration") bill to a vote today or tomorrow. He believes he has secured enough turncoat Republicans to break the filibuster promised by pro-Second Amendment patriots like Senators Paul, Lee, and Cruz. The sell-out Republicans that have joined Reid's camp need to hear from us immediately and forcefully!

S. 374 & S. 649 will make you a criminal

There is nothing benign about "universal background checks," which are gun control code words for "universal gun registration." Not only would S. 649 open the door for registration, it and similar bills under consideration would make it a 5-year federal felony to:
  • leave town for more than 7 days, and leave your spouse, partner, or roommate at home with your guns;
  • lend a gun to a friend to take shooting or to go hunting;
  • loan a gun to your mother if she lives at a different residence;
  • hand a gun to someone at a gun club which is not a shooting range;
  • teach someone to shoot on your own land, if you hand that person the gun; or
  • fail to report a gun as lost or stolen within 24 hours, even if you are on a hunting trip deep in the woods and are unable to do so.
These Senators are threating your freedom! They must be told in no uncertain terms that they will pay dearly if they do not abandon their plans to attack Second Amendment rights!

Sellout is worse than the Feinstein gun ban!

Urgent action required. It is urgent that every gun owner call their Senators today and demand that they oppose the “See a Shrink, Lose your Guns” sell-out bill that is being authored by Senators Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) - but which also has Chuck Schumer’s fingerprints all over it. Call immediately at 202-224-3121.

See a Shrink, Lose your Guns. The anti-gun "ranters" have spent the last week telling us that Republican Senators can’t filibuster Harry Reid’s gun control bill; that they can’t cut off debate to a bill they haven’t seen yet. “Let the bill come up,” they say. “We need to see the bill” before Senators can vote against cloture to proceed to it.

Well, we’ve seen the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, and it’s worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an “amendment tree.”

Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers “gun show sales” and Internet sales. But if you’ve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you’d like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you’re covered.

The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people's would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)

And for those Republicans who think they’re going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an “amendment tree”). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn’t give “unanimous consent” to let those Republicans offer their amendments.

So if you live in a rural area, you’re effectively barred from selling or buying a gun - or it at least becomes very, very difficult.

Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer “national registry” language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.

But that’s not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks you’re “dangerous” and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system.

Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been added into the NICS system because they’d seen a VA shrink about their PTSD? Well guess what? Now it’s going to happen to the rest of the population ... by the millions!

And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that don’t send every single patient’s name to the Instant Check system, and to make sure that their lives are ruined if they don’t send a patient to NICS and anything goes wrong.

The bottom line: “See a shrink; lose your guns.”

All of this will reportedly be on an amendment tree with the Feinstein gun ban and magazine bans.

Repeal of gun owner protections. In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act - the provision that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to “demonstrate” to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don’t do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.

Please keep in mind, nothing in this bill would have stopped Newtown dirtbag from killing his mother and taking the firearms that she owned and perpetrating the horrible crimes that he committed.

Nothing is this bill would actually make children safer at schools. There is nothing that will actually keep bad guys from stealing or illegally acquiring guns, but there’s plenty that will threaten our gun rights!

ACTION: Click here to contact your two senators immediately. Tell them the “see a shrink; lose your guns” sellout is even worse than the Feinstein gun ban which will reportedly be on the same amendment tree with it. Distribute this alert far and wide.

Time is short, so if you call - at 202-224-3121 - you may click here to see the pre-written letter and use the contents to help direct your comments.

Reid plows ahead on gun control legislation

Democrats are confident they have the votes to bring gun control legislation to the Senate floor this week. But getting the votes to pass the bill later this month will be much harder.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has not yet conducted a formal whip count, but at least eight Republican senators have said they will not attempt to block an effort to bring up the measure, a senior Democratic aide said.

Fifty-five senators caucus with the Democrats, and Reid acknowledged he might lose a few votes on his side of the aisle. During his weekly press conference Tuesday, Reid declined to make any bold predictions. Asked if he had the votes, Reid responded, “I don’t know.”

Behind the scenes, Reid and his lieutenants are convinced they have the 60 votes necessary to start the debate on the floor.

“He’s always been confident that he can get 60 votes,” the aide said.

The staffer noted statements by Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) indicating they would not support a filibuster of moving to the gun bill.

More @ The Hill

Student charged in Texas college stabbing attack

Student charged in Texas college stabbing attack

 Here's your change Reid to add knives to your gun bill..........

A student who told police he'd fantasized for years about stabbing people to death was charged Tuesday with carrying out a building-to-building attack at a Texas community college that wounded at least 14 people, many of whom were stabbed in the face and neck, authorities said.

The Harris County Sheriff's Office said in a statement that 20-year-old Dylan Quick used a razor-type knife, and that he told investigators he'd been planning the attack at the suburban Houston campus for some time. Two people remained in critical condition late Tuesday.

Pieces of the blade were found in at least one victim, according to the sheriff's office. Broken blade pieces also were found in the area where the stabbing occurred on the Lone Star Community College campus in Cypress, and the handle was discovered in a backpack that Quick was carrying when he was arrested.

Quick was charged Tuesday night with three counts of aggravated assault. It wasn't immediately clear if additional charges would be filed, though he is scheduled to make his first court appearance Thursday.

Authorities were seen entering Quick's parents' home in a middle-class neighborhood of Houston late Tuesday. No one answered the door or the phone at the red brick house, where two vehicles were parked in the driveway, including a Honda Accord with a license plate that said "DYLAN." It was not immediately known if Quick had an attorney.

"I can't imagine what would have happened to that young man to make him do something like this. He is very normal," said Magdalena Lopez, 48, who has lived across the street from the Quick family for 15 years.

Quick, she said, would always say hi to her and her family when she would see him outside taking out the trash or working on his family's front lawn. Quick is deaf, she said, and a street sign, "Deaf Child In Area," was posted on the block of brick, ranch-style homes warning drivers of his condition.
"I can't believe he would do it," Lopez said.

The stabbing spree began around 11:20 a.m., and students described a bloody scene.

More @ Townhall