Apr03

Time to Get Off the Sidelines – No Fooling

by webmaster on April 3, 2013 at 08:46
Posted In: Gun Control, Second Amendment

Time to Get Off the Sidelines – No Fooling

Editor’s Note: Publisher Jim Shepherd first broke the news about his campaign to get individuals involved in protecting their Second Amendment rights in last Wednesday’s Outdoor Wire. The reception has been terrific to this point, but we encouraged Jim to freshen his story -and invite each of you to join him -and the rest of us – for MyTime2Stand.

——-

Maybe it’s just me, but the government’s new “if you see something, say something” campaign makes me nervous. It’s not like a “Turn In A Poacher” (TIP) program or Crimestoppers; they have specific goals in mind. Sure, this campaign began to make us aware of potentially “suspicious behavior” by air other travelers. Speaking up might avoid another terrorist attack.

Now, it’s primary goal seems to be encouraging my neighbors to call a toll-free (and anonymous) number to report “my neighbor’s behaving very strangely” as I walk briskly around my neighborhood in the evening.

They called it strange. I call it exercise .

Honestly, I’ve had it with all the nanny-statism and the government sticking its nose into more and more of what I consider my private life. So, I’m going to do my best to do something about it.

For more than 40 years, I’ve tried to adhere to a few basic rules: be fair and balanced by presenting both sides of an issue; not to report as fact something not independently verified, and whenever possible, to be a dispassionate observer, sticking to the facts. Those values are also part of the Journalist’s Creed.

Over the years, I’ve observed our nation changing. The majority is now expected to give way to “squeaky wheels” who believe they know best what’s best for “the rest of us”. Today, they’re working to cram their values (or lack thereof) down our collective throats.

Enough already. For the time-being there’s no room for dispassionate observation. I believe it’s time for all of us to stand.

Gun owners seem to have adopted a “last man standing” mentality. You know, we’ll be the “last man standing” when “they” come for “us”. That’s upside-down thinking – just what the few want the many to do – sit still and do nothing until we’re whittled down to a manageable size.

Instead of promising to be the last one standing, how about we all stand up? That would be hard to ignore.

So, I’m announcing “MyTime2Stand”. It looks funny without a ubiquitous “.com” at the end. Yes, it’s going to be a website, but it’s not just a catchy web address.

It’s a pledge I’m making – to stop watching and do something. And I’d invite you to consider joining me. I know we won’t always agree on everything, but we can agree on one thing: waiting for someone else to do something doesn’t cut it any more.

One person really can make the difference, and it takes more than my bylined column to prove I really believe that.

So…my second-hand Jeep and I are hitting the road. I’ll be reporting from some of the summer’s large outdoor and shooting events: the NRA Annual Meeting in Houston, the Bianchi Cup in Missouri; the FLW Cup in Louisiana and others. But I’m going back to my small-town roots to encourage people to go to their city halls, county courthouses and state capitols and let officials see first-hand that they’re being watched. To put more “me” into “we, the people”.

One area where I’m standing firm is the Second Amendment. The “rights” enumerated there weren’t granted by the founding fathers, they were “recognized” by them. Educating today’s politicians about that critical distinction is more than our right- it’s our obligation.

Mayor Bloomberg may have more money than all of us, but he has the same number of votes- one. And his should only count in New York.

That message gets lost when delivered via the organizations that represent our interests in Washington. Outside the Beltway, their message is institutional. In our smaller world, people make the difference.

One of my goals is to bring access to the informational resources of our national organizations into the hands of average people across the country. Having effective, focused messages make it far easier to deliver impactful messages to local officials.

Before last Wednesday, MyTime2Stand had only been shared with a few trusted friends. I wanted to share the idea with readers before taking it the industry to solicit support. I wanted to know I had your buy-in on the idea first.

The Outdoor Wire’s readers did more than buy-in, they wrote, called and let me know they were not only willing to get involved, they’d only been waiting for someone to give them the opportunity to get going.

And several manufacturers have promised their support as well. That will some financial concerns off my mind-and make it easier to concentrate on spreading the word.

We’re finishing a basic website (www.MyTime2Stand.com) where you’ll be able to go and see how we’re progressing – and who’s helping make this road trip possible.

There will also be a place for you to sign on to get our updates. In the not-too-distant future, we’ll offer you industry information to help you reach out to your elected officials -and your friends and neighbors.

Later, you’ll be able to check out stories, photographs and videos from along the way. I’m going to be providing video, audio and written updates to several media outlets along the way as well.

In the meantime, if you’re willing to get involved or just want us to keep you in the loop, you can drop me an email at MyTime2Stand@icloud.com, and I’ll be tweeting updates, too (@jimshepherd).

As always, we’ll keep you posted.

–Jim Shepherd

http://www.shootingwire.com/

46 total views, no views today

Feb28

Oregon Right to bear arms

by webmaster on February 28, 2013 at 10:58
Posted In: Assault Weapons, Gun Control, Second Amendment

Oregon Constitution:
Article 1, Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

73 total views, 1 views today

Feb27

The Case AGAINST Background Checks!

by webmaster on February 27, 2013 at 06:22
Posted In: Gun Control, Second Amendment

February 19, 2013 17:23

Backgrounds checks are “all the rage” when it comes to “gun control” and “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.” They are even quite popular among many pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment and conservative/small government groups. However, is there a case to be made AGAINST background checks? Could they be doing more harm than good? I believe the answer to both of those questions would be YES!

The most obvious and most often cited critique of background checks is that they are an undo burden on the law-abiding citizen and criminals don’t buy guns from places that do background checks. So, what does a background check actually accomplish? It keeps criminals and crazy people from walking into their local gun store and buying a gun. That’s good right? The point is to make it more difficult for them, while knowing full well that it will not stop them. So, I’ll concede the point that background checks are a minor inconvenience to someone who can’t legally buy a gun, but it is by no measure or stretch of the imagination a road block. So, at best a background check is ineffective, but at worst they are downright destructive. How so?

Background checks are based on the assumption that there is a segment of the American citizenry that can be denied the basic human right and ability to defend themselves. That thought alone strikes at the very core of the rights, freedoms and liberties recognized and guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That someone can be a free man or woman in society, going about their daily lives and be denied the ability to protect themselves from the evils of this world is unconscionable.

Let’s take a look at what can get you denied on a background check, for example if you have ever been:

  • Convicted of a felony. Convicted in any court of a crime which is punishable by a term of more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years.
  • Indicted for a crime punishable by more than one year.
  • A fugitive from justice.
  • A user of illegal drugs or an addict.
  • Involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
  • An illegal alien.
  • Dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
  • Renounced your U.S. citizenship.
  • Subject to a restraining order for threatening a family member.
  • Convicted of domestic violence.

Now some of these seem reasonable right? Obviously, if you are an illegal alien or have renounced your citizenship then you have no Constitutional protections, but does that preclude you from your natural right of self-defense? For that matter, does being indicted or convicted of a crime deny you your natural right of self-defense either before you go to trial, in the case of an indictment, or after you serve your time, in the case of a conviction? The problem here is obvious, nothing listed above should deny a person the right of self-defense, as the Founding Fathers stated, it is a natural right that is neither granted by government nor able to be infringed upon by government. So, basically anyone who is a danger to themselves or society, not capable of exercising their full rights as a citizen or not a citizen of the United States should not be free to walk the public streets. In other words, if you are not incarcerated, institutionalized or living in some other country then you have an inherent right and responsibility, recognized and protected by our Constitution to defend yourself. By extension, you have a right to have access to the means to defend yourself. Now this position may sound radical to many of you and you may be thinking; “Is he saying that felons, non-citizens and mentally ill people should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun?” Well, the answer to that would be Yes and No. If a felon has served their sentence and is released from jail, then it should be assumed that they are no longer a threat to society. If a mentally ill person is a threat to themselves or society, they should be institutionalized and should not have access to guns, knives, bats, cars, rocks, sticks, etc… If a non-citizen is here legally, they should have the same inherent natural rights as anyone else, if they are here illegally then they should be deported. An illegal alien has a right of self-defense as naturally as anyone else, it is not restricted to citizens, it is a basic human right. So, until they are deported, and then subject to some other form of government, they retain their basic human rights within our borders. Basically, anyone allowed to freely roam within society should have access to whatever means necessary to adequately defend their own life, or the lives of others, if the need arises.

Again though, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Background checks are ineffective at meeting their stated goal, they create a sub-class of American citizens denied the full rights of citizenship and worst of all it breeds dependence. What do I mean by “breeds dependence?” Many people look at the thousands of gun control laws on the books, background checks, the hoops people have to jump through to buy a gun and get a false sense of security. It is blatantly obvious in the current ongoing gun control debate, “If we had universal background checks or banned certain guns or limited ammo, or, or, or… we would be safer.” That thought process implies that a regulatory system, the government or some mechanism of laws will protect us. When people look to “the system” or the government to protect them, then it is a small step to think that “with all of these protections in place, I don’t need a gun.” People abdicate their personal responsibility for their own self-protection to “the system” or the government. This in turn leads to more available victims for those who live outside the system, the criminal elements, evil doers and yes, even the would-be tyrants. In contrast, a nation that fully respects and adheres to the inherent right of self-defense has no such false sense of security. People know that potentially violent or mentally unstable people could buy a firearm and, with that knowledge, would be more likely to take responsibility for their own personal protection. So, rather than wasting time and resources on ineffective gun control measures, they would direct their efforts to more productive goals such as sentencing guidelines, rehabilitation, border security and mental health.

So, the case against background checks (and gun control in general) is that it is ineffective at best, it denies a segment of free American citizens the basic human right of self-defense and breeds dependence upon the government and/or some “system of laws and regulations” over self-reliance. It targets the symptoms of what is wrong in our society without addressing the cause and in turn exacerbates the root of the problem. It puts an undo burden on the law-abiding and drains resources that could be used to address the actual problems. In short, it feels good and sounds reasonable, but solves nothing and is destructive to the society as a whole.

http://www.colddeadhands.us/Home/tabid/56/ctl/ArticleView/mid/515/articleId/26362/The-Case-AGAINST-Background-Checks.aspx

99 total views, no views today

Feb26

‘gun-free’ zones are “soft targets for sociopaths”

by webmaster on February 26, 2013 at 20:52
Posted In: Gun Control

Rev. Fulbright’s email:

Dear Representative,

I hope you are taking care of yourself during this busy session. I know it is a challenging, compressed time.

I am writing to express my grave concern about House Bill 105. Ample evidence has shown that schools and guns do not mix, and in particular, guns in the hands of amateurs/non-professionals is extremely dangerous, especially in any highly-charged situation. to expose our children to greater risk in their schools by encouraging more guns on campuses is something that we cannot allow.

My husband and I moved to Wyoming not too long ago. We believed it was a good place to raise children. With the recent and reactive expansion of gun laws and the profoundly serious dangers of fracking, we find we are seriously reconsidering our decision, which is wrenching to all of us. However, the safety of our family must come first. We are waiting to see what the legislature does this session. I know of other new-to-Wyoming families in similar contemplation. Your choices matter. It would be sad to see an exodus of educated, childrearing age adults from Wyoming as a result of poor lawmaking.

Sincerely,

Rev. Audette Fulbright

Hunt’s response

Rev. Fulbright,

I’ll be blunt. If you don’t like the political atmosphere of Wyoming, then by all means, leave. We, who have been here a very long time (I am proudly 4th generation) are quite proud of our independent heritage. I don’t expect a “mass exodus” from our state just because we’re standing up for our rights. As to your comments on fracking, I would point out that you’re basing your statement on “dangers” that have not been scientifically founded or proved as of yet.

It offends me to no end when liberal out-of-staters such as yourself move into Wyoming, trying to get away from where they came from, and then pompously demand that Wyoming conform to their way of thinking. We are, and will continue to be, a state which stands a head above the rest in terms of economic security. Our ability to do that is, in large part, to our “live and let live” mentality when it comes to allowing economic development, and limiting government oversight. So, to conclude, if you’re so worried about what our legislature is working on, then go back home.

Sincerely,

Hans Hunt

Representative Hans Hunt

House District 02

 

http://www.guns.com/2013/02/25/wyoming-lawmaker-to-pro-gun-control-minister-if-you-dont-like-the-political-atmosphere-of-wyoming-then-by-all-means-leave/

76 total views, no views today

Feb26

Levi Strauss Letter Confirming Anti-Gun Stand

by webmaster on February 26, 2013 at 00:21
Posted In: Gun Control, Second Amendment

From: Levi-MBXLevis <levistrauss@levi.com>
Subject: RE: Your Comment/Question
To: *****45acp@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 7:02 AM

Hi ****,

Cassandra here from Levi’s(R). Thanks for checking in with us.

For several years, Levi Strauss & Co. has focused on empowering youth to make social change on issues they care about. A leading concern among youth is the increase in gun violence.

We hope to take a leadership position on this issue by supporting PAX, a non-profit anti-violence organization, dedicated to the vision of a society free of gun violence. Levi Strauss & Co. supports PAX’s goal to bring all Americans together to support common sense solutions to the gun violence epidemic.

If you’d like more information about the PAX organization, please visit their web site at www.paxusa.org.

If there’s anything else we can help you with, just email us back or give us a call at 1-800-USA-LEVI. We’re available Monday – Friday, 6:00am – 4:30pm Pacific Time.

Thanks again,

Cassandra
Levi Strauss & Co.
Consumer Relations
casara3573968

193 total views, 1 views today