Lighting Strike More Likely than Murder by AK-47

The leftist have again started calling for an "assault weapons ban"- saying it is sensible and reasonable gun control. They suggest there is a grave crisis and anyone who does not support a ban on these scary looking guns is anti-children, pro-violence, pro-death, and all sorts of evil.

Interesting Fact: in the US, you are about 1.24 times more likely to be STRUCK BY LIGHTNING AND SURVIVE, than you are to be murdered with ANY TYPE Rifle (all rifle types- bolt action, lever action, grandpa's .22 rifle, dad’s .30-06 he uses for deer hunting, John Wayne's Winchester and so called “assault rifles”) based on most current complete year data from the FBI.

According to the FBI 2012 extended homicide data (table 8) the total number of murders using a rifle was 322 (that is "three hundred twenty-two" so no one thinks I typed the number wrong). Again, that is for ALL TYPES OF RIFLES - not just so-called "assault rifles." The number of murders with shotguns are even less. These numbers do not include persons killed with a rifle by law enforcement (justified death).  There were 30 total for 2012. It also does not include the 20 persons killed with a rifle in self defense by private citizens- defined by FBI as "the killing of a felon while committing a felony, by a private citizen.” This does not include the number of times a felon was wounded by a private citizen using a rifle, and this figure does not include handguns used in self defense. (table 15). 

The lightning data came from National Geographic "Flash Facts About Lightning." According to this article about 400 people are struck by lightning each year and survive.

The fact is that according to data from the FBI, more people were murdered by blunt objects including hammers, clubs, etc. (518) , knives (1,589), and even using hands, feet and fists (678)  than were murdered by ALL rifles, not just “assault rifles.”  The FBI data for year 2012 also provides four previous years data for reference.  The number of murders with any type rifle was lower for each year than for knives, blunt objects or hand to hand.  On top of it all, the number of murders using a rifle as a weapon has decreased each and every year.

The FBI data is publicly available.  The leftist in Congress, the administration, Brady and Bloomberg ALL have access to this data.  They KNOW that an “assault weapons” ban would do very, very, little.

So I ask, what is the REAL reason the leftist are calling for an “assault weapons” ban?

(No NRA sources were used in the compiling of this data or writing this article).

Lighting Strike More Likely than Murder by AK-47

Fast and Furious- The Holder Contempt Vote

Tomorrow will be a huge day with the Supreme Court announcing the ruling on Obama Care and its Tax Hikes and the Holder Contempt vote for his decision to defy Congress's lawful subpoena asking for documents regarding the testimony Holder gave to Congress stating "No one knew anything about Fast and Furious"-- which he then retracted in a letter about 9 months later.

Unfortunately, based on the recent history of Our Great Leader, HRH Barak I, (Peace be upon him) in going around Congress on immigration, defying the Courts in the ruling on SB1070, and his stated goal of "not waiting" for the Congress and acting on his own, I STRONGLY SUSPECT, that shortly after the House cites Holder for Contempt, His Imperial Majesty Barack Hussein Obama, will just issue a pardon for Eric Holder, stating this was all a Republican witch hunt and then say something to the effect "well, President Ford issued a pardon for Nixon,"  Fast and Furious was the same thing as what President Bush did (Operation Wide Receiver), and Congress should sit down and shut up.  He will also go back to the "Executive Privilege" claim.

ICE Agent Jamie Zapata

On the claim of Executive Privilege- my first response to Executive Privilege is sorry-- the President has stated he knew NOTHING about  Fast and Furious- How can there be Presidential Communication about something he knew nothing about?

My second response Executive Privilege?   Sorry--  United States. v. Nixon 418 US 683 (1974) states executive privilege does not cover criminal activity.  Congress is investigating Criminal Activity and there is evidence already that "high levels" of the administration of Our Great Leader, HRH Barack I (Peace be Upon Him), knew of and were briefed on Fast and Furious- despite denials of the Administration.

On "its the same thing Bush did"-- There are MAJOR differences between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. Operation Wide Receiver was run by BATFE by placing RFID markers in gun stocks and following straw purchasers and arresting them.   Wide Receiver was ended when Justice found problems with the RFID markers AND Wide Receiver was conducted in COOPERATION with the Mexican government.   In contrast, Fast and Furious was run WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE of Mexico and included few if any RFID markers.  Wide Receiver covered 275 guns-- Fast and Furious, OVER 2000!

On "this is a Republican Witch Hunt"--Unfortunately, the facts and the record seem to get in the way of the denials and the cover up.  Democratic Congressman Ciro Rodriguez of Texas, a member of the Appropriations Committee, requested a $30 Million increase for the Justice Department for the parent of Fast and Furious, Operation Gunrunner.  The appropriation request was made in March of 2009- with Fast and Furious beginning less than six months later. How could a Congressman know about money needed for a Justice Department operation, unless he had been briefed on the operation and asked to appropriate the money?  Or are we saying the Congressman just made the whole thing up as some place to park $30 million?

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry

On March 12, 2010 Gary Grindler, Attorney General Holder's current Chief of Staff, attended a meeting on Fast and Furious where he wrote on his notes "multiple long rifle sales," "Fast and Furious," and notes about long gun reporting and multiple weapons sales.  He also wrote "seizures in Mexico"-- but remember, the Justice Department said they knew nothing of Fast and Furious.
The list of these events goes on and on.

Why care?  Because the reason for Fast and Furious was simple- If American's are outraged about Guns from Arizona going to Mexico, they would support a renewal of the Assault Weapon's Ban.   This was the stated goal of Eric Holder as early as 2009.

On "Ford pardoned Nixon"-- No one died from the Watergate break in.

Lest we forget, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed on December 15, 2010, by guns purchased in January 2010 through Fast and Furious, allowed to leave Phoenix, cross the border, and show up in the hands of drug traffickers. 

Lest we also forget ICE Agent Jamie Zapata was killed in February 2011, also with guns from Fast and Furious.
Lest we also forget, hundreds of others are estimated to have been killed directly from Fast and Furious.

But of course, Our Great Leader is probably right--  this is all nothing and just a distraction...

Fast and Furious- The Holder Contempt Vote

"Reasonable Restrictions" from Chicago & Daley-- As Predicted

Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy wrote a great article about the practical impacts of McDonald v. Chicago. Ilya stated, "The ideologically divided nature of the Court’s decision suggests that the legal status of the Second Amendment isn’t yet completely secure. That said, the decision will have a substantial practical impact in a few areas…"

Ilya is correct that the Second Amendment isn't yet completely secure. Ilya is also correct to predict "substantial practical impact," although, the "impact" planned in Chicago is, I believe, exactly OPOSITE of what the Court intended.

In comment, both to that post and here, I wrote of my fears of what Daley would do to "get around" McDonald v. Chicago, and I predicted that his "reasonable restrictions" would be less than reasonable…

From the Chicago Tribune:

Each qualified gun owner in a home could have only one handgun under a new ordinance being drawn up that could be heard by the City Council Police and Fire Committee as soon as Thursday, officials said. The ordinance would require handgun owners to register their weapons with the Police Department and keep them secured inside the home.

The measure also likely would force gun owners to take safety training classes, undergo a criminal background check and obtain liability insurance, city officials said. City Hall also is mulling a formal ban on gun shops, said Mara Georges, the city's top attorney.

"Reducing the number of handguns in Chicago is critical to public safety," Georges said. "The same concerns that motivate a one handgun per person per residence limit — reducing the number of guns in circulation in Chicago and the risk of illegal traffic in guns — motivate the gun dealer ban."

First- keeping guns secured inside the home is a DIRECT AND BLATANT violation of DC v Heller…

Second- Being required to obtain liability insurance to exercise your SECOND Amendment Rights would be NO DIFFERENT from being required to obtain SLANDER insurance to exercise your FIRST Amendment Rights…

Third- Criminal Background Checks are ALREADY required under federal law- don't make it sound like it is YOUR idea, Mayor Daley.

Fourth- BANNING GUN DEALERS is an illegal restraint of lawful trade in my humble opinion.  They are talking "DEALERS" here, which would seem include the private FFL holder.

Fifth- If DALEY really thinks there should be a ONE firearm limit to the Second Amendment, then I propose that his FIRST Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech be limited to ONE SPEECH per decade... (that actually is not a bad idea-- he really should just sit down and shut up).

The only thing not mentioned by the Chicago Tribune was how much you would have to bribe "donate to City Hall" to have your registration approved.

Of course, Chicago will say this is all very reasonable-- After all a ZERO gun limit to ONE gun limit is a 100% increase- how much more reasonable can they be????

GET A CLUE MAYOR DALEY-- YOU LOST! THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FUNDEMENTAL AND APPLIES TO CHICAGO-- NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!

Oh, how I hate being right when I make predictions of what extremes the left will go to...

"Reasonable Restrictions" from Chicago & Daley-- As Predicted

Thoughts on McDonald v. Chicago

I am sure most people were expecting me to write yesterday rejoicing in the wake of McDonald v. Chicago. Unfortunately, the ruling was 214 pages and I have yet to complete reading it.

With that said, yes I am very happy about the ruling but I am concerned about what will actually result.

My suspicion is that Mayor Daley of Chicago has already said, "Justice Alito has delivered his opinion, now let him enforce it."

Unfortunately, the Court remanded the case back to the 7th Circuit for more proceedings. This may take an additional couple of years to resolve, just in this case. The reverse and “remand” leaves LOTS of time for the 7th Circuit to “procee[d] slowly and incrementally” and then “submit their opinion in longhand”  (quoting from Justice Scalia's concurrence mocking Justice Stevens).

This is CHICAGO POLITICS we are talking about. Daley is not only going to run with locks (probably one only available from the City at great cost), lock inspections etc, he is going to place a “reasonable” licensing scheme in place– $50,000 per year (plus another $25K to $50K as a bribe “donation” to “expedite” your paperwork”) for the license to start with– and he will claim that is reasonable– as will the District Court, as will the 7th Circuit, and this will all end up back before SCOTUS in 3 years. THEN he will pull another similar law– City approved ammo, purchased only from the City– again at $1000 per box (plus your bribe “donation”)- and again he will claim it is reasonable– as will the District Court, as will the 7th Circuit– and this will all end up back before SCOTUS in 3 years after the last case. THEN he will pull another similar law–

(Do I need to continue– this is Daley and Chicago we are talking about– where do you think Obama and Emanuel learned their politics from?)

Unfortunately we are dealing with a VERY corrupt political environment in Chicago. Remember, 3 YEARS after Heller, there have only been 800 registrations in DC; and I cannot believe that there are ONLY 800 in DC that desire protection in their homes with a firearm– not after 3 years.
.

Thoughts on McDonald v. Chicago

After 222 Years, Tomorrow Is the Day

It is hard to believe that although the Constitution was written and ratified 222 years ago, the question of if the 2nd Amendment- the right to keep and bear arms, applies to the states, has not been resolved.

Tomorrow, we find the answer to that question, in that the Court will rule on this question in McDonald v. Chicago.

After 222 Years, Tomorrow Is the Day

Gun Control Lobby Patrolling Blogs- Re Starbucks

So the Gun Control Lobby appears to be doing Google Blog Searches for anyone writing about Starbucks' Open Carry Policy-

I guess they forget that bloggers like to know who their readers are.  Maybe I will make a "bad guys" list at the Brady Campaign!!! I certainly hope so!

Gun Control Lobby Patrolling Blogs- Re Starbucks

Starbucks and the Right to Carry- UPDATE

Original Post Here

Earlier today I sent an inquiry to Starbucks press office as follows:

1. In the fourth paragraph you state " we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position." Are you saying that having "law abiding" armed customers makes your stores safer? or are you saying "law abiding" armed customers may suddenly become "law breaking" citizens and threaten your partners? Your statement is not clear on this issue.

2. Does your open carry position apply to states with Concealed Carry laws but restricted "open carry"- such as Kansas? Your statement is not clear on this issue

I received this reply moments ago from a Starbucks Spokesperson:

Statement
As we indicate in our statement, our approach is to comply with the local laws and statutes in Kansas and all other communities we serve.

The statement certainly does NOT address my first question, which I believe, needs to be addressed.

As to the second question-
Unfortunately, Kansas law, and many other states with concealed carry allow a business to post a "no guns" sign on the door. Some municipalities in Kansas, for example do NOT allow open carry, but do allow concealed carry.

The original statement does NOT indicate that Starbucks will allow Concealed Carry in their stores- it merely addresses open carry.

However, we appreciate the response from Starbucks and appreciate their apparent support for the Second Amendment

Starbucks and the Right to Carry- UPDATE

Concealed Carry Saves Lives- Again- This Time in Memphis

On March 5, 2010 at about 3:00 pm a man armed with a butcher knife was running around the parking lot of the Frayser Plaza Shopping Center Family Dollar store in Memphis, Tennessee.

The assailant was attempting to stab people in the parking lot of the Family Dollar Store according to several witness.

Unfortunately for the assailant, the last man he tried to attack (and some witnesses say did stab), was an armed concealed carry permit holder, who was in his car with his two step-daughters.

After the assailant lunged at the man with the knife, the armed step-father opened fire and killed the knife wielding assailant.

According to reports, investigators do not consider this murder.

Witnesses- and there apparently were many- are all saying the father of two acted in self defense.

According to a call I placed this morning to the Family Dollar Store involved, the store does NOT have any "concealed carry restriction" sign or "no firearms" sign.

I have also placed a call to the Memphis Police Press Office to find out if the shooter has been charged with anything, or will be charged with anything. There has been no reply as of the time of this posting (the Press Officer was in a meeting), but I will post the reply when I get it.

Concealed Carry Saves Lives- Again- This Time in Memphis

Starbucks and The Right to Carry

UPDATE HERE

Starbucks has released a press statement (quietly- I had to search a bit to find it on their web site and it was just a link without a summary like all their other releases) stating that they support the laws in the states they operate.

In fact, Starbucks states that PROHIBITING OPEN CARRY in their stores may actually be a security risk for their employees! I am NOT SURE if they are saying having armed citizens in our stores makes us safer, or if they are saying that asking" a Law Abiding Citizen" to leave is dangerous.

We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

I suppose the good news is that Starbucks has realized that people who support the Second Amendment drink coffee too...even at $4.00 a cup.

Starbucks and The Right to Carry

The Case- McDonald v. Chicago

The case of the decade was heard today, McDonald v. Chicago.  The importance of this case is that this case will determine if the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

Unfortunately, I have been fighting a cold today, so I did not get to listen to the arguments.   However, the transcript of the case arguments can be found here.

I will be reviewing the case later tomorrow and provide my thoughts and opinion on it as time allows.

The Case- McDonald v. Chicago

On the 2nd Amendment, Bill O'Reilly is a Pinhead

Normally I am not one to jump all over another conservative, but Bill O'Reilly has crossed the line.

On Thursday the 18th, O'Reilly was conducting an interview when the subject of confiscation of firearms during a state of emergency (such as in Katarina) came up. When Bill was told that such confiscations were unconstitutional, Bill stated, “That’s a pretty extreme position.”

Extreme? A government official, such as the Police Chief of New Orleans, having the power to suspend the Constitution and seized people's legally owned firearms in CLEAR violation of the Second Amendment?

Extreme? A minor government official having the power to suspend the Constitution and deprive people of their GOD GIVEN RIGHT or NATURAL RIGHT of Self-Defense which is Constitutionally protected by the Ninth Amendment?

I am sorry Bill. You are the one with the "extreme" viewpoint. Our Constitutional protections are sacred and believing that our GOD GIVEN and NATURAL RIGHTS as well as our Constitutional Rights should be protected at ALL COSTS is NOT EXTREME.

A the belief that gross violations of the Second and Ninth Amendments are WRONG is NOT Extreme.

Sorry, Bill, YOU are the one with the extreme position here.

Maybe YOU should be named a Pinhead because you are certainly NOT a Patriot on this issue.

On the 2nd Amendment, Bill O'Reilly is a Pinhead

The Push To Ease Arizona Gun Laws

From the Arizona Republic: "Two bills, one to allow concealed weapons without a permit and the other to exempt guns made and kept in the state from federal regulation, each has more than a dozen legislators backing them. If passed, Arizona would be only the third state in the nation to allow either of the looser restrictions"

First-
Personally I believe the Constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. I agree that having people take firearm safety classes is a good idea, and proficiency demonstration is also a good idea. But the idea of paying a fee for the right to carry concealed bothers the Constitutionalist inside me.

Second-
If the Gun is manufactured and sold in the state of Arizona, the Fed's have NO RIGHT in the Constitution to regulate or legislate them. The idea of the "interstate commerce" clause being able to be used for anything Congress feels like infuriates me. This is another example of Federal overreaching. The interstate commerce clause was intended only to regulate interstate commerce.

The Push To Ease Arizona Gun Laws

Helping Two for the Price Of One

This year, when it comes time to spend that tax return, may I recommend a way to both help a US company and support Israel at the same time?

Purchase a Baby Desert Eagle Pistol!!!

Support your local gun store, the American company that imports them and Israel Weapons Industries who manufactures them. I am proud to say they resently received my support!!!

Helping Two for the Price Of One

Work Place Shooting Stopped By Concealed Carry

This is a story that will not be talked about on the left-wing media. Why? Because it proves two things. First, it proves that Concealed Carry works. Second, it proves that "gun control" will NOT stop a bad guy who wants to commit a crime.

This comes to us from the Houston Chronicle, via "Of Arms and the Law."

A woman, who is allegedly mentally unbalanced, walked into a Houston business with a bow and shot an employee in the chest. She then pulls what appears to a pistol (it turned out later to be fake) and points it at other employees. Two employees, who are concealed carry permit holders, fire at her, wounding her. The woman retreats to another room. Police arrive. The woman draws the bow and points it at police officers who also fire at her. The woman, and the man she shot with the arrow are both hospitalized.

First, this story proves that concealed carry works in the workplace. I cannot help but wonder how many more people would have been hurt if the employees had not stopped the woman with the bow. Obviously, she was willing to take more lives. This is evidenced by her drawing on police.

Second, the woman used a bow. Reports are that she was mentally unbalanced. When a person REALLY wants to kill, not having a gun will not stop them. If "Gun Control" had been involved in this story, the woman with the bow would have been the victor, she would not have been stopped, and neither of the concealed carry holders would have been armed.

The ONLY thing that gun control does is disarm law-abiding citizens.

Or perhaps we need tighter bow control?

For a list of other interesting weekend "reads" see here.

Work Place Shooting Stopped By Concealed Carry

The White House Gun-Ban Agenda

The White House website has posted the President's agenda-- including his intent to ban ownership of certain firearms by law-abiding citizens.

This is planned, despite a reported drop in violent crime by 23% between 1990 and 2008.

Bottom line, stock up on firearms now, before the current administration decides that law-abiding citizens, who have passed criminal background checks, cannot be trusted with gun's that shoot a single shot when you pull the trigger.

Stock up now, before the administration decides how many rounds of ammunition law-abiding, background cleared, fingerprinted, citizens are allowed to carry in a concealed carry weapon- or ANY weapon for that matter.

The Second Amendment says, "...the right of the people…shall not be infringed." What part of SHALL NOT be infringed does the administration not understand?

The White House Gun-Ban Agenda

Thoughts on the Inauguration

At noon Eastern, a new age began in this country. I am not speaking of the "first's" that occurred today, although I will agree that it is remarkable and wonderful, that just over 45 years since Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech, an African-American family is the First Family. We should not forget, that President Obama is not the first African-American to hold high government office. The first African-American Secretary of State was appointed by President George W. Bush, and the first African-American Woman appointed Secretary of State, was also appointed by President George W. Bush.

The new age that I speak of is an age of liberalism with little to no method to object. President Obama is a liberal. The liberals control the House by a large majority. The liberals control the Senate by almost a veto and filibuster proof majority. The Cabinet, with the exception of Defense Secretary Gates, are all liberal ideologues.

I am NOT looking forward to this new age.

The President was correct in his speech, when he stated that we faced challenges ahead.

We face an economy with serious issues. Unfortunately, the "Market" reacted to the inauguration today with a drop of 332 points. The "Market " dropped 50 of those points during the President's speech. Does that tell us what "the Street" really thinks of the new President?

We continue to face a war on terror. It is ridiculous to think we should treat terrorist we capture as criminals. They are enemy combatants, captured in a combat zone, out of uniform. They should be treated as such, and not treated as an American citizen subject to all the rights and privileges' of our court system. They should be treated as what they are, and I do NOT believe this contradicts any of the ideals our country was founded on.

We face a possible climate shift. I am NOT speaking of global warming. On the contrary, I am speaking of global cooling. What we need for this is SCIENCE. REAL SCIENCE- not the voodoo and false science of Global Warming. We need real scientists doing real research so we can prepare for what is to come. I do not say or believe that we need scientist to tell us how to radically change the climate, for I do not believe that man has very much influence on planetary climate change. We are in a period of sunspot lapse that exceeds 95% of normal, and only during the Dalton Minimum has a lapse time been longer. Fortunately real science is finally starting to "leak out." Now even the liberal CNN is starting to see that, just maybe, cooling is happening and "Global Warming" may be a myth.

We face a time when the rights of the individual are constantly eroded. We live in a time when, although the Court has ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment applies to the individual, the new President has appointed an Attorney General who has, throughout his career, worked to weaken the Second Amendment.

Yes, I agree with our new President, we face many challenges. What those challenges are, and how we should address them are where the President and I disagree.

Although I wish the President and his family good health and safety, and I want to see a safe, secure, peace in the Middle-East, especially for Israel, I do not wish the President success. I do not want him to succeed. The success of this President and Congress will be disaster for this country.

As such I will write. I will write my Congressman. I will write here. I will make calls. I will donate to organizations such as the NRA who are there to ensure that Freedom is protected. I encourage all my readers to do the same.

It is 650 days until mid-term elections. 650 days until we can change the polarity of the Congress. We have 650 days of hard work ahead of us.

I encourage all my readers to join me, working over the next 650 days, so that we can bring about REAL change.

Thoughts on the Inauguration

Own A Gun? Don't Apply to Work for Obama

The President-Elect and the Former Clintonista's and Kool-Aid Drinkers who are in his transition team, are making it clear that restricting gun ownership will be a big part of the agenda.

The new administration's "vetting" questionnaire, asks about gun ownership. Question 59- "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."

Either the President-Elect does not want gun-owners in his administration, or more likely, he wants to make sure there are as few as possible, and that none have ever been involved in a self-defense situation that those of us on the "evil right" could point to.

He does not ask about violation of firearms laws. He asks about ownership. He asks about registration (which is only required in five states). He asks about registration lapsing (you only have to renew a registration in New York and a couple of it's surrounding counties).

He also asks how, and by whom it is used. Why would this matter? Is this so that he can say, "No one in my administration has a concealed carry permit" when he and his liberal Congress attempt to pass a federal ban on Concealed Carry, or pass a federal ban on "shall issue" laws.

His website (this link is provided as proof of source material only. I personally discourage people from reading lies and unconstitutional promises) makes it clear that he wants to create a "permanent" "assault weapon's ban" -- in other words, a permanent ban on all firearms that are not single shot.

His website states he wishes to make sure all gun's are child-proof-- In other words, he wants to create legislation so restrictive as to eliminate all guns currently owned by law-abiding citizens in the United States.

The President-Elect LIED out-right on his website, by saying the Tiahart amendment keeps law-enforcement from accessing gun-trace information. The Tiahart amendment actually RESTRICTS trace information to ONLY law-enforcement for bona-fide investigations, rather than allowing anyone and everyone from accessing the database. The President-Elect states he will repeal the Tiahart amendment.

Bottom-line- this President-Elect is the most Anti-Gun liberal we have ever elected. With the liberal majority in the House and a possible super-majority in the Senate, soon there may be nothing to stop him.

Our only hope, is to Save Saxby Chamblis and prevent the liberal super-majority in the Senate.

Own A Gun? Don't Apply to Work for Obama

Attacking Ammunition

Since The Court has said gun ownership is a RIGHT, the Left has decided to go after our ammunition.

In the last couple of days, a report has surface from the CDC and North Dakota Department of Health regarding eating wild game that was shot with lead projectiles. North Dakota has issued cautions on wild game, but the state of Wyoming said they find nothing significant in the study.

Some in the MSM(and on left-wing anti-gun sites which I have a policy that I will not link to) are claiming that the report says that eating game causes increase lead in the blood.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation disagrees with what the MSM is saying. This is from their press release on this study:

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study on human lead levels of hunters in North Dakota has confirmed what hunters throughout the world have known for hundreds of years, that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition poses absolutely no health risk to people, including children, and that the call to ban lead ammunition was and remains a scare tactic being pushed by anti-hunting groups to forward their political agenda.

Fortunately, the facts seem to get in the way of what the MSM and Anti-gun crowd would like us to believe. The MSM and Left are playing with numbers to make the numbers show what they want.

The report states that a lead level (Pb) higher than 10.0 micrograms/deciliter is not healthy. The geometric mean lead level of the entire population of the US is 1.67.

According to this study the geometric mean Pb (lead) in micrograms/deciliter for those adults who consumed venison was 1.27. HOWEVER, the Pb for those who lived in houses built before 1977 was 1.31, house before 1946 was 1.39. Therefore, can't we say that living in a house built before 1977 is a greater risk for increase Serum Pb than eating game?

Further, the Pb of those who only had a High School Education was 1.57 and High School drop-outs (those who did NOT have education higher than high-school) was 1.95!!! So, can we conclude that College prevents elevated Pb in the Blood? Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The study also appears to show that those who had been eating venison for 10 years or more, had lower Pb levels than those eating for only a year or less (-0.114 decrease from those who had only eaten venison for one year) I wonder how that works? The more venison you eat, the lower your Pb levels are?

It does not appear that his study has been peer reviewed, and it certainly seems as though Wyoming is right, there is nothing significant related to eating of game. It IS likely that other factors are causing the increases that are seen and eating wild game is just coincidental. It should be noted that there was ONE person in the study with lead levels at about 9.86, which is about 9 times higher than the group mean. In other words, this one person could certainly affect the study.

Just because one thing follows another, it does necessarily mean that the one thing is caused by the other. The author of the study seems to have forgotten that.

Click HERE for the full text of the report.

Attacking Ammunition

Tale of Two Bills: Enforcing the Second Amendment or The Fox Guarding the Chicken Coop

Two bills will be coming to the floor of the House within the next few weeks. HR 6691- The Second Amendment Enforcement Act and HR 6842- The National Capital Security and Safety Act.

While both bills were introduced by Democrats in the House, and both bills "allege" that they are intended to enforce The Court's ruling from Heller, they are as different as night and day.

The first bill, HR 6691- The Second Amendment Enforcement Act, was introduced by Rep Travis Childers (D-MS) and has 51 co-sponsors. The bill, based on my reading, is correctly named.

This bill does several things. First and foremost, it removes from the Mayor and Council of DC the ability to make gun laws. From the bill:

The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms

The bill also repeals the ban on semi-automatics, it repeals the registration requirement, it repeals the ban on Handgun Ammunition, it repeals all criminal penalties for carrying a gun in your own home, it restores the right to self defense, and authorizes DC residents to purchase firearms in Maryland or Virginia.

From The Washington Post:

It would abolish the city's gun registration requirements and allow residents to own semiautomatic pistols and rifles. It also would permit them to buy guns in Virginia and Maryland and would scrap a regulation that firearms in homes be kept unloaded and safeguarded except in cases of imminent danger.

This, I believe is what the Court intended with the Heller decision.

The second bill, HR 6842- The National Capital Security and Safety Act, is a weak attempt to pay lip service to Heller, but leaves the fox guarding the chicken coop. It was introduced by Delegate (not Congresswoman) Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and is co-sponsored by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) (need I really say more?).

The bill gives D.C. 180 days (from passage of the bill, in theory) to comply with Heller. It also leaves the Mayor and Council of DC in charge of making any and all regulations regarding firearms in D.C. To date, the D.C. council has done virtually NOTHING with regard to the requirements of Heller. In fact, their "interpretation" of Heller seems to be that they need to make no changes.

DC is, of course, in favor of the second bill, HR 6842, and against HR 6691. They are attempting to paint the picture that if HR 6691 becomes law, citizens would be able to walk the streets of the capital with .50 caliber sniper rifles and have machine guns on their persons.

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier told Congress, "Imagine how difficult it will be for law enforcement to safeguard the public, not to mention the new president at the inaugural parade, if carrying semiautomatic rifles were to suddenly become legal in Washington."

Strange, SatanPresident Bush, allegedly the most hated man in America, has been to the Kansas City area several times, and there has been no difficulty to protect him here and yet the area allows the carry of firearms.

The truth is that they hate the Second Amendment, and hate the people who seek to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.

HR 6691 The Second Amendment Enforcement Act is a law that MUST be passed. Although this legislation only directly affects the citizens of D.C., it is sends an important message. The first being that the Supreme Court ruling in Heller actually had meaning and that it cannot be disregarded. Second, the legislation keeps the people who would seek to destroy the Second Amendment from continuing to write laws that keep Americans from their Constitutional Rights.
Although HR-6691 is expected to pass, everyone who believes in the Second Amendment should call or write their Congressman to ask for their vote. The NRA is backing this bill.

There is some concern that the bill will not have time to make it through the Senate before end of session. This is probably good for Senators Obama and Biden; they will not need to actually make a stand before the election. Neither of them supported the Individual Right to Bear Arms. But then again, with Sen. Obama's record, he would probably just vote "present" anyway.

Tale of Two Bills: Enforcing the Second Amendment or The Fox Guarding the Chicken Coop

A Night In a Future Obama Presidency

Please use the Email Icon below to share with all your friends.

A Night In a Future Obama Presidency