Law School Conservative

A few days ago, I told you about the tragic case of Liquarry Jefferson, an 8-year-old boy who was accidentally killed by his 7-year-old cousin in a Boston neighborhood.  Mayor Thomas Menino was quick to try to blame the NRA for this tragedy.

But as I pointed out, this family had been under constant supervision from social workers and the police, and the 15-year-old family member who illegally possessed that gun had not been removed from the home despite his extensive juvenile record and gang ties.   

Well, now there's even more proof that Mayor Menino is more concerned with eradicating legal gun ownership than going after violent criminals who illegally possess firearms. 

Massachusetts has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and, as a result, legal gun ownership in the state has declined by 25 percent over the past few years.  In Boston, that figure is closer to 40 percent.  But Mayor Menino told the Boston Globe, "We're pleased that the number of gun owners has decreased in our city." 

Unless you think law-abiding gun owners are somehow responsible for the actions of violent criminals, you shouldn't be pleased by this news.  But Menino is happy as a clam about the fact that more Bostonians are now defenseless against violent criminals, and that tells me he's not interested in reducing crime. 

Like the rest of these gun-banning political hypocrites, he's only interested in making gun owners the bad guys.

I can't believe Sarah Brady can make some of her statements with a straight face.  She actually had the nerve to try to claim the Brady Campaign isn't really anti-gun at all.  In a new book called Why We'll Win (in which I also have an essay), she writes:

"The fact is that this debate isn't about guns at all. It's about how we as a society relate to guns. It's about how we buy them, sell them, store them and use them.  When we talk about gun control, what we're really talking about are ways to encourage people to behave differently around guns."

How we relate to guns?  Ways of "encouraging" people?  Baloney. 

The Brady Campaign has never met a gun-control law it doesn't like.  It has supported every gun ban, restriction, waiting period, registration or licensing requirement, tax, fee and condemnation imaginable.  It won't even go on the record as being opposed to a blanket ban on firearm ownership, like the D.C. gun ban. 

At the end of the day, the Brady Campaign "wins" by taking away your rights.  The NRA "wins" by protecting them.  And ultimately, I believe that's why we'll win more battles than we lose. 

Let us hope that those who strive to preserve our freedoms have more fire in their bellies than those working to take them away.

The latest from pundit-land is “no” since up to 50% of Americans say they will definitely not vote for her.

But for those of us who have watched her public appearances over time, from speeches to debates, the answer isn’t so clear.

Here’s a good analogy: If you’ve seen the original Rocky movie on DVD (or VHS), you may recall a scene where Apollo Creed, the heavyweight champion, (more…)

Tags:
Bill Clinton,
Future,
Homeland Security,
Hillary Clinton,
Political Parties,
Charles Gordon,
Barack Obama,
Campaigns, Groups & Parties,
Iraq,
Defense Policy,
Conservatism,
GOP,
War on Terror,
Economics,
Democrats,
Tax Reform,
Election 2008

The drumbeat is beginning again.  Can you hear it?  Every day, we're seeing more and more columnists and politicians trying to blame violent crime on us, the law-abiding gun owners. 

In New Jersey, where an illegal alien who was out on bail for child rape and assault allegedly killed three people and injured another, writers like Bob Braun are pointing the finger not at the criminals who commit these heinous acts, but at you and me.

He recently wrote in the Newark Star-Ledger:

"We still debate about whether cheap handguns-the only purpose of which is to help people kill each other-should be manufactured and sold, as if the Framers of the Constitution meant the Second Amendment to assist gang warfare in city streets. Hey, Mr. Charlton Heston, want to talk about cold dead hands now? Three pairs of them in a Newark school yard the other night."

Mr. Braun, the Framers knew exactly what they were doing in drafting the Second Amendment as a protection of our right to keep and bear arms.  The Second Amendment isn't designed to "assist gang warfare." It's designed to make sure "We the People" can protect ourselves against these thugs. 

New Jersey's gun laws, which include getting permission from the local police before being able to purchase a firearm, didn't do a thing to stop the alleged murderer. 

How many Right-to-Carry holders are there in Newark, New Jersey?  Not too many, I'm guessing.  Your politicians have made it crystal clear that they don't like guns or gun owners.  Sadly, those who commit violent crimes hate to see law-abiding gun owners as well. 

You might ask yourself if it's a good thing that your elected leaders and your violent criminals share the same anti-Second Amendment ideology.

I've been following the events at the Huffington Post over the past couple of days, and I have to say it's pretty funny.  I love to see anti-gunners turn on each other, and that's exactly what's happened with Josh Sugarmann from the Violence Policy Center and anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

It all started out when Sugarmann wrote about my blogs, "It's Not a Gun Control Bill" parts one and two, from back in June.  Sugarmann believes me when I say the new NICS improvement bill isn't a gun-control bill, and that makes him upset.  He wants military veterans who've never been adjudicated as mental defectives to be forever banned from owning a gun.  He wants a lifetime ban on firearms ownership for those who've worked to clear their name and restore their rights. He hates it, because it takes steps to cut through the bureaucratic red tape that has plagued the NICS system. 

But Carolyn McCarthy's upset because Sugarmann's a big name in the anti-gun movement, and she's responded to his criticisms with an article of her own in the Huffington Post.  In it, she says that no bill dealing with firearms can clear Congress without the approval of the NRA.  That's because of you.  You are the NRA, and with your voice being heard loud and clear, we'll continue to block any anti-gun legislation that gets introduced.

In the meantime, it's kind of fun to watch these anti-gunners argue with each other over a bill that's not about gun control.

As most gun owners know, residents of Washington, D.C., have been barred from owning a firearm in their home for thirty years.  You may have heard about recent efforts to overturn that ban, including a potential hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.  But I'll bet you haven't heard about the public hearing on the issue, where a congressional delegate lectured a pro-gun audience to "pipe down!"

The anti-gun media in our nation's capital city didn't want to tell the whole story, but I will.  Because, when it comes to freedom, Americans should never pipe down!

Washington, D.C.'s congressional delegate, Eleanor Norton, has been a longtime gun-control supporter.  Frankly, she hasn't met a gun ban she didn't like.

So Norton attended a hearing on the D.C. gun ban intent on lecturing the crowd about the need to keep the gun ban in place.  She was more than surprised to find that her district is full of NRA members and citizens who want their Second Amendment rights restored.

She was surprised and flabbergasted.

She said, "Wherever a resident may stand on guns … and there are a few residents in the District of Columbia who would see our gun laws repealed and make common cause with the NRA," Norton began.  At her mention of the NRA, the crowd erupted in applause, much to Norton's shock and horror.

She continued, stunned, "... I've been in Congress 15 years, and most of you look real strange to me … I don't know where you came from.  All right.  PIPE DOWN!"

It reminds me of Jack Nicholson in the movie, A Few Good Men.  Delegate Norton JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

And the truth is, the result of D.C.'s gun ban is a violent crime-infested city.

And the truth is, NRA members and law-abiding citizens live everywhere, including in Washington, D.C.  And they, like all Americans, value all of their rights... including the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And we absolutely will not-ever-pipe down.

They call themselves People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but the media doesn't tell you that this multi-national organization has no ethics when it comes to family values.

These animal rights extremists have shown their anti-family core by a gross effort to indoctrinate our schoolchildren with the comic book, Your Mommy Kills Animals.

They want to end all hunting, fishing, animal research, drug testing, circuses and rodeos.  They are well financed and highly organized.  And they're out to brainwash our kids.

PETA fliers even go so far as to warn children to "... keep your doggie or kitty friends away from Mommy - She's an animal killer."

That's outrageous.  And it's sick.

Dr. Carolyn Newberger, a noted child psychologist, was right when she said, "It's using children in the worst possible way... targeting children and making them feel their mothers are murderers is absolutely unconscionable."

But where is the media outrage over PETA's disgusting effort to pit children against their own mothers?  Reporters too bent on maintaining their political correctness remain cowardly silent.

The real truth the media ignores is that, when it comes to ethics, PETA comes up short.

A few weeks ago, I told you about Boston Mayor Tom Menino trying to blame the NRA for the tragic death of 8-year-old Liquarry Jefferson.  Jefferson was shot by his 7-year-old cousin, who found the gun in Jefferson's home.  When police arrived, the family originally tried to claim Jefferson was shot by a home invader before they finally came clean a day later. 

Poor Liquarry never stood much of a chance.  As the Boston Globe recently reported, his father was in prison on the day Liquarry was born.  He had four other siblings from three men, all of them gang members, all currently in prison.  Even his mother has a criminal record. 

Into this life of violence and crime, young Liquarry was born.  Who knows how much of his innocence had been stripped away by his own family members, much less the violent criminals his father, mother, and brothers associated with? 

Police believe the gun in Liquarry's home, for example, came from Liquarry's 15-year-old stepbrother.  That 15-year-old stepbrother was also a gang member with a long record. 

Still, all these signs of violence weren't enough for social workers to remove Liquarry from the home.  Instead they tried a new school and intensive counseling.

When will these folks understand that knowing your ABC's doesn't matter much if you don't know right from wrong?  And yet Mayor Menino would rather blame the millions of law abiding gun owners than take a hard look at this family and the justice system in Boston.

There's much more to talk about with this story, so stay tuned in the days ahead.