A broad coalition of gun rights advocates and conservate groups have proclaimed Jan. 19 "Gun Appreciation Day."
In a press release, this coalition urged citizens to use Jan. 19 to go to local gun shows, ranges and stores to show support for the 2nd Amendment. Scheduled to send a message to Washington two days before President Barack Obama's second inauguration, the "Gun Appreciation Day" is expected to rival "Chick-fil-A Day" as a public statement of protest against government policies.
"The Obama administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people," Gun Appreciation Day chairman Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc said in the press release. "If the American people don't fight back now, Obama will do to the Second Amendment what he has already done to the First with Obamacare -; gut it without a moment's thought to our basic constitutional rights."
The Gun Appreciation Day includes coalition members such as Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Special Operations Speaks, Revolution PAC, Citizens and Country, Social Security Institute, Committee to Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano, Conservative Action Alerts, Women Warriors PAC, Conservative Action Fund, and Political Media, Inc. The National Rifle Association, however, is not part of this group.
Gun Appreciation Day member organizations urged their supporters to line up "around the block" at gun stores, gun counters, gun shows, and gun ranges "to protest the Obama administration's post Sandy Hook assault on gun rights."
Gun rights movement leader Alan Gottlieb founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms stated, "We need to ban politicians who assault our rights, not firearms that are used thousands of times a day to protect lives and property from criminal attack."
Will you be celebrating the first Gun Appreciation Day and if so, how?
I believe Obama's agenda is ultimately to severely restrict 2nd Amendment rights as his 23 executive actions had precious little to do with crime prevention and much to do with restricting the options available to law abiding citizens. Notice that none of the Obama's 23 "agenda items" contained any provision for increasing penalties for crimes committed with guns. However, I also believe that the fear of gun confiscation is unwarranted at this time. Although the 2nd Amendment may be under attack, it has a sufficient number of defenders to prevail. It will take more than sound bites to disarm America.
Of course, stable and responsible owners of guns should show their appreciation for these mechanical marvels. I don't see a problem with it.
The Supreme Court defined "well regulated" to mean disciplined and trained; therefore it is constitutionally permissible to require individuals be checked to ensure they are able to meet this requirement. This lets out felons, the mentally ill, and persons with orders of protection against them. As written, members of a trained and disciplined militia members prepared to defend the United States have this right and if you are not such a member then you don’t. British removed arms from loyalist militias so the amendment was written to secure the common defense of the state, not for individual defense (that's why we have police). IMHO: Large ammunition clips, assault rifles, etc. for use outside of a trained and disciplined militia can be regulated without violating the 2nd amendment (i.e. Heller was incorrect legislation from the bench). Under the current wording of the Heller decision, any weapon (i.e. missile launcher, Nuclear weapon…) is fair game since the amendment says nothing about the type arms involved. That way lays madness. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Justice Robert H. Jackson See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2, http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html
I was coming out of my apartment in New York City and encountered my drugged-up neighbor, who began approaching me with a sword. I talked to him and quoted Scripture. He soon turned around and reteated into his apartment. Several weeks ago here in Atlanta, a woman was home when a man broke into her home. She began shouting in the name of Jesus. The burglar quickly left the woman's home. An old friend of mine was entering her apartment building when a man attempted to rape her. My friend began shouting Psalm 91:11, "For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." The rapist quickly said "Okay, okay", got off my friend and retreated. A missionary from my former church also foiled an attempted rape while she serving in Nigeria. She shared her Christian testimony with the rapist and he quickly retreated.
think of how shorter your list would be, just once, with an emphasis on THINK!!!!
God bless you and enjoy the rest of your Martin Luther King holiday.
Sen. Fienstien said years ago that she would take every gun away if she could get the votes needed. So yes, the gov't does want our guns.
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller, sub-section one of the Decision section basically points out that the Supreme Court ignored the plain text requirement of a "well regulated militia" in deciding the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right. Sub-section two affirms the right of the government to impose restrictions on who may own what kind of arms and how, where, and when they may or may not be carried by individuals. Which is all that is being proposed today. Sub-section three strikes down bans (I agree) and the trigger locks (something that prevents accidents or unauthorized use and seems reasonable to me) or storing disassembled (I agree its overreaching regulation). A requirement that guns be secured to prevent theft or misuse should have been addressed; but unfortunately wasn't. The dissenting opinion is of particular interest as it is in line with previous court decisions and interpretations.
Which is the more dangerous weapon, one which can be used with lethal force from a distance and which affords the intended victim no opportunity to out run the projectile/attack (such as a firearm), or something (like a knife) which must be used at close range and from which the intended victim may run away from the weapon/attacker. I can tell you I've heard of very few drive by knifings lately.
John B.- As usual you are spot on. There are ways of discussing things and working things out that do not violate the public trust. Executive order isn't one of them.
I know I give you a lot of crap but you seem like you are probably a good guy, rather than evil, and I appreciate that. I think you will agree that bad things can happen to the best people. How do you think God is going to protect you and your children? Do you think you are magically shielded from harm because of your faith? If so, good for you. I believe there is good and there is evil and that there are brave men and women who stand between the two. Somebody put them there and one should respect the possibility that these folks may be answered prayers rather than part of the problem.
Why is it that they have been mostly Democrats? Just wondering. Ft Hood~~~ Registered Democrat ~ Muslim Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals. Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff ~ Registered Democrat Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal. Connecticut School Shooter- ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians. I'm no Republican, but it sure makes me wonder if the far left is just incapable of understanding gun safety and maybe they are indeed quite wacky.
As long as it is a freedom, you are free to celebrate. Knock yourselves out. Play safe.
Nidal Hasan asked for a particular type of weapon "...the one with the highest standard magazine capacity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting) before his rampage at Ft. Hood. Loughner used a 33-round clip and was stopped when he ran out of ammo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting). Sounds like limited the clip size would have helped in both of these cases. Preventing a mentally ill individual like Lounghner from getting a gun would also be a good idea. Perhaps felons or people with orders of protection shouldn't get guns either. It is within constitutional authority for the government to regulate these all of issues.
Recent studies (http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/, http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home, http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full, http://phys.org/news/2011-04-guns-home-greater-health-benefit.html, etc.) show that accidental or self inflicted death or injury from a firearm is far more likely than that the weapon will be used against an intruder for self defense.