WordPress database error: [Got a packet bigger than 'max_allowed_packet' bytes]
UPDATE wp_options SET option_value = 'O:9:\"magpierss\":19:{s:6:\"parser\";i:0;s:12:\"current_item\";a:0:{}s:5:\"items\";a:316:{i:0;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:31:\"Obama\'s Still Trying to Deceive\";s:11:\"description\";s:1922:\"Barack Obama just can\'t escape the gun issue. As gang violence continues to plague Chicago, the senator sat down with the Chicago Sun-Times to talk about guns and gun control. 

Obama wouldn\'t say how he feels about the legality of Chicago\'s ban on handguns, and he wouldn\'t give an opinion on the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, either. He did say that it\'s clear the bans aren\'t working, but still expressed his belief that these cities should be able to pass and enforce any gun-control law they want.

Obama also displayed an amazing lack of information about the Tiahrt Amendment, claiming it blocks ATF from sharing gun-tracing information with local authorities. As I\'ve pointed out before, the reason the Tiahrt Amendment became law back in 2003 was the lawsuit filed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Back in the 1990s, Daley wanted access to ATF crime trace data from outside of Chicago, and he wanted to try to use that information to sue gun manufacturers and dealers. The Clinton-era ATF blocked the release of the information, and law enforcement agencies around the country begged the federal government to keep this information in the hands of law enforcement only. The Tiahrt Amendment doesn\'t do anything to stop law enforcement from getting access to these records. It only blocks the public and grandstanding politicians from trying to use these sensitive law-enforcement tools for their own purposes.

Senator Obama says he doesn\'t like empty rhetoric. But that\'s all we hear from the senator when it comes to the Second Amendment. His attempts to pander to gun owners by expressing vague support for the Second Amendment won\'t fly. Not when his legislative record is littered with votes against the Second Amendment and for more gun control.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=394\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Thu, 08 May 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:31:\"Obama\'s Still Trying to Deceive\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1922:\"Barack Obama just can\'t escape the gun issue. As gang violence continues to plague Chicago, the senator sat down with the Chicago Sun-Times to talk about guns and gun control. 

Obama wouldn\'t say how he feels about the legality of Chicago\'s ban on handguns, and he wouldn\'t give an opinion on the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, either. He did say that it\'s clear the bans aren\'t working, but still expressed his belief that these cities should be able to pass and enforce any gun-control law they want.

Obama also displayed an amazing lack of information about the Tiahrt Amendment, claiming it blocks ATF from sharing gun-tracing information with local authorities. As I\'ve pointed out before, the reason the Tiahrt Amendment became law back in 2003 was the lawsuit filed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Back in the 1990s, Daley wanted access to ATF crime trace data from outside of Chicago, and he wanted to try to use that information to sue gun manufacturers and dealers. The Clinton-era ATF blocked the release of the information, and law enforcement agencies around the country begged the federal government to keep this information in the hands of law enforcement only. The Tiahrt Amendment doesn\'t do anything to stop law enforcement from getting access to these records. It only blocks the public and grandstanding politicians from trying to use these sensitive law-enforcement tools for their own purposes.

Senator Obama says he doesn\'t like empty rhetoric. But that\'s all we hear from the senator when it comes to the Second Amendment. His attempts to pander to gun owners by expressing vague support for the Second Amendment won\'t fly. Not when his legislative record is littered with votes against the Second Amendment and for more gun control.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1922:\"Barack Obama just can\'t escape the gun issue. As gang violence continues to plague Chicago, the senator sat down with the Chicago Sun-Times to talk about guns and gun control. 

Obama wouldn\'t say how he feels about the legality of Chicago\'s ban on handguns, and he wouldn\'t give an opinion on the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, either. He did say that it\'s clear the bans aren\'t working, but still expressed his belief that these cities should be able to pass and enforce any gun-control law they want.

Obama also displayed an amazing lack of information about the Tiahrt Amendment, claiming it blocks ATF from sharing gun-tracing information with local authorities. As I\'ve pointed out before, the reason the Tiahrt Amendment became law back in 2003 was the lawsuit filed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Back in the 1990s, Daley wanted access to ATF crime trace data from outside of Chicago, and he wanted to try to use that information to sue gun manufacturers and dealers. The Clinton-era ATF blocked the release of the information, and law enforcement agencies around the country begged the federal government to keep this information in the hands of law enforcement only. The Tiahrt Amendment doesn\'t do anything to stop law enforcement from getting access to these records. It only blocks the public and grandstanding politicians from trying to use these sensitive law-enforcement tools for their own purposes.

Senator Obama says he doesn\'t like empty rhetoric. But that\'s all we hear from the senator when it comes to the Second Amendment. His attempts to pander to gun owners by expressing vague support for the Second Amendment won\'t fly. Not when his legislative record is littered with votes against the Second Amendment and for more gun control.\";}i:1;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:20:\"Right-to-Carry Works\";s:11:\"description\";s:2252:\"In a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Barack Obama once again expressed his opposition to Right-to-Carry laws. That\'s not surprising. After all, Obama is a politician from one of two states in the union without any Right-to-Carry law on the books. But when Senator Obama says he hasn\'t seen any evidence that Right-to-Carry laws "make anyone safer," I have to say to Barack Obama: You\'re not looking hard enough.

Senator, meet Charles Todd, a Right-to-Carry holder from Memphis who defended himself against an armed carjacker last week. 

Senator, meet Jane Downey, a Right-to-Carry holder who defended herself against an intruder in her sister\'s home earlier this month. 

Senator, meet James Spiers, a Right-to-Carry holder and pizza delivery driver. Spiers was just trying to do his job when he was robbed late last month. With a gun held to his head by the criminal,  Spiers shot and wounded his attacker. The single father of a ten-year-old girl was fired from Pizza Hut for violating company policy by legally carrying his firearm. Would you prefer, senator, that Mr. Spiers not have had his gun? Would you like to explain to his daughter why Right-to-Carry doesn\'t work?

The simple fact is that 40 states have "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry laws on the books. There are millions of armed citizens in this country, and if they were a problem, we\'d know about it. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show a decrease in crime after Right-to-Carry laws are passed. 

Barack Obama\'s opposition to Right-to-Carry isn\'t based on logic or reason. It\'s just the knee-jerk emotional response of an anti-gun politician. But his knee-jerk emotional response, if put into law, would make us all less safe and less free.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=393\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Tue, 06 May 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:20:\"Right-to-Carry Works\";s:7:\"summary\";s:2252:\"In a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Barack Obama once again expressed his opposition to Right-to-Carry laws. That\'s not surprising. After all, Obama is a politician from one of two states in the union without any Right-to-Carry law on the books. But when Senator Obama says he hasn\'t seen any evidence that Right-to-Carry laws "make anyone safer," I have to say to Barack Obama: You\'re not looking hard enough.

Senator, meet Charles Todd, a Right-to-Carry holder from Memphis who defended himself against an armed carjacker last week. 

Senator, meet Jane Downey, a Right-to-Carry holder who defended herself against an intruder in her sister\'s home earlier this month. 

Senator, meet James Spiers, a Right-to-Carry holder and pizza delivery driver. Spiers was just trying to do his job when he was robbed late last month. With a gun held to his head by the criminal,  Spiers shot and wounded his attacker. The single father of a ten-year-old girl was fired from Pizza Hut for violating company policy by legally carrying his firearm. Would you prefer, senator, that Mr. Spiers not have had his gun? Would you like to explain to his daughter why Right-to-Carry doesn\'t work?

The simple fact is that 40 states have "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry laws on the books. There are millions of armed citizens in this country, and if they were a problem, we\'d know about it. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show a decrease in crime after Right-to-Carry laws are passed. 

Barack Obama\'s opposition to Right-to-Carry isn\'t based on logic or reason. It\'s just the knee-jerk emotional response of an anti-gun politician. But his knee-jerk emotional response, if put into law, would make us all less safe and less free.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:2252:\"In a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Barack Obama once again expressed his opposition to Right-to-Carry laws. That\'s not surprising. After all, Obama is a politician from one of two states in the union without any Right-to-Carry law on the books. But when Senator Obama says he hasn\'t seen any evidence that Right-to-Carry laws "make anyone safer," I have to say to Barack Obama: You\'re not looking hard enough.

Senator, meet Charles Todd, a Right-to-Carry holder from Memphis who defended himself against an armed carjacker last week. 

Senator, meet Jane Downey, a Right-to-Carry holder who defended herself against an intruder in her sister\'s home earlier this month. 

Senator, meet James Spiers, a Right-to-Carry holder and pizza delivery driver. Spiers was just trying to do his job when he was robbed late last month. With a gun held to his head by the criminal,  Spiers shot and wounded his attacker. The single father of a ten-year-old girl was fired from Pizza Hut for violating company policy by legally carrying his firearm. Would you prefer, senator, that Mr. Spiers not have had his gun? Would you like to explain to his daughter why Right-to-Carry doesn\'t work?

The simple fact is that 40 states have "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry laws on the books. There are millions of armed citizens in this country, and if they were a problem, we\'d know about it. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show a decrease in crime after Right-to-Carry laws are passed. 

Barack Obama\'s opposition to Right-to-Carry isn\'t based on logic or reason. It\'s just the knee-jerk emotional response of an anti-gun politician. But his knee-jerk emotional response, if put into law, would make us all less safe and less free.\";}i:2;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:19:\"Paying for the Gold\";s:11:\"description\";s:847:\"In a few months, the members of the U.S. Olympic Shooting Team will head to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The host country is expected to provide stiff competition for our men and women. But did you know that the Chinese shooters stand to make millions if they win five gold medals?

Chinese state-run media have reported that a company that makes an alcoholic drink called baijiu have promised the team more than ten million dollars if they capture at least five medals. In a country where the average income is just over $2000 a year, that\'s quite a payday. 

Our own shooters don\'t stand to make millions if they bring home some gold, but they\'ll be fierce competitors nonetheless. They\'re representing the home of liberty and freedom, and they don\'t need to be bribed with the promise of riches to do their best.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=392\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Mon, 05 May 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:19:\"Paying for the Gold\";s:7:\"summary\";s:847:\"In a few months, the members of the U.S. Olympic Shooting Team will head to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The host country is expected to provide stiff competition for our men and women. But did you know that the Chinese shooters stand to make millions if they win five gold medals?

Chinese state-run media have reported that a company that makes an alcoholic drink called baijiu have promised the team more than ten million dollars if they capture at least five medals. In a country where the average income is just over $2000 a year, that\'s quite a payday. 

Our own shooters don\'t stand to make millions if they bring home some gold, but they\'ll be fierce competitors nonetheless. They\'re representing the home of liberty and freedom, and they don\'t need to be bribed with the promise of riches to do their best.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:847:\"In a few months, the members of the U.S. Olympic Shooting Team will head to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The host country is expected to provide stiff competition for our men and women. But did you know that the Chinese shooters stand to make millions if they win five gold medals?

Chinese state-run media have reported that a company that makes an alcoholic drink called baijiu have promised the team more than ten million dollars if they capture at least five medals. In a country where the average income is just over $2000 a year, that\'s quite a payday. 

Our own shooters don\'t stand to make millions if they bring home some gold, but they\'ll be fierce competitors nonetheless. They\'re representing the home of liberty and freedom, and they don\'t need to be bribed with the promise of riches to do their best.\";}i:3;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:30:\"Animal Rights in the Classroom\";s:11:\"description\";s:841:\"Animal rights extremists are trying to invade classrooms in Washington, D.C. 

With the passage of the "Animal Protection Amendment Act," they\'d be able to go into schools and indoctrinate children with their bizarre notion of “humane education.” 

The bill would require the D.C. Department of Education provide such instruction. It would also get rid of the phrase "animal owner" in the District of Columbia. No longer would you own a dog or a cat. Now you\'d be their "animal guardian."

It\'s easy to dismiss these attempts at indoctrination as silly. But the animal rights extremists are serious. They want to change the way you think, the words you use, and the way you live to fit into their agenda. And they won\'t stop until they get their way.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=391\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Fri, 02 May 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:30:\"Animal Rights in the Classroom\";s:7:\"summary\";s:841:\"Animal rights extremists are trying to invade classrooms in Washington, D.C. 

With the passage of the "Animal Protection Amendment Act," they\'d be able to go into schools and indoctrinate children with their bizarre notion of “humane education.” 

The bill would require the D.C. Department of Education provide such instruction. It would also get rid of the phrase "animal owner" in the District of Columbia. No longer would you own a dog or a cat. Now you\'d be their "animal guardian."

It\'s easy to dismiss these attempts at indoctrination as silly. But the animal rights extremists are serious. They want to change the way you think, the words you use, and the way you live to fit into their agenda. And they won\'t stop until they get their way.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:841:\"Animal rights extremists are trying to invade classrooms in Washington, D.C. 

With the passage of the "Animal Protection Amendment Act," they\'d be able to go into schools and indoctrinate children with their bizarre notion of “humane education.” 

The bill would require the D.C. Department of Education provide such instruction. It would also get rid of the phrase "animal owner" in the District of Columbia. No longer would you own a dog or a cat. Now you\'d be their "animal guardian."

It\'s easy to dismiss these attempts at indoctrination as silly. But the animal rights extremists are serious. They want to change the way you think, the words you use, and the way you live to fit into their agenda. And they won\'t stop until they get their way.\";}i:4;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:24:\"Blowing Away Stereotypes\";s:11:\"description\";s:1482:\"Barack Obama just cannot make his comments about "bitter" small-town Americans who "cling to" guns or religion go away. And now the Wall Street Journal\'s Arthur Brooks makes a fact-based case for just how wrong Obama\'s comments are.

According to the story, gun owners are happier in general than non-gun owning Americans.  They earn more money and spend less time feeling "outraged" over the actions of others. 

Based on the tens of thousands of gun owners I\'ve met, I\'d say these statistics sound pretty accurate. If gun owners are angry, it\'s not because we feel let down that the government hasn\'t taken good care of us. It\'s because we feel the government won\'t let us take care of ourselves!

But gun owners are angry about things like the D.C. Gun Ban, the attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms and .50 caliber rifles, legislation to track our ammunition purchases and to end private transfers of firearms, and all the other gun-control legislation that\'s designed to crack down on us instead of violent criminals. 

The presidential candidates would serve themselves well by reading Brooks\' Wall Street Journal article. What they learn about gun owners might surprise them. \";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=390\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:24:\"Blowing Away Stereotypes\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1482:\"Barack Obama just cannot make his comments about "bitter" small-town Americans who "cling to" guns or religion go away. And now the Wall Street Journal\'s Arthur Brooks makes a fact-based case for just how wrong Obama\'s comments are.

According to the story, gun owners are happier in general than non-gun owning Americans.  They earn more money and spend less time feeling "outraged" over the actions of others. 

Based on the tens of thousands of gun owners I\'ve met, I\'d say these statistics sound pretty accurate. If gun owners are angry, it\'s not because we feel let down that the government hasn\'t taken good care of us. It\'s because we feel the government won\'t let us take care of ourselves!

But gun owners are angry about things like the D.C. Gun Ban, the attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms and .50 caliber rifles, legislation to track our ammunition purchases and to end private transfers of firearms, and all the other gun-control legislation that\'s designed to crack down on us instead of violent criminals. 

The presidential candidates would serve themselves well by reading Brooks\' Wall Street Journal article. What they learn about gun owners might surprise them. \";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1482:\"Barack Obama just cannot make his comments about "bitter" small-town Americans who "cling to" guns or religion go away. And now the Wall Street Journal\'s Arthur Brooks makes a fact-based case for just how wrong Obama\'s comments are.

According to the story, gun owners are happier in general than non-gun owning Americans.  They earn more money and spend less time feeling "outraged" over the actions of others. 

Based on the tens of thousands of gun owners I\'ve met, I\'d say these statistics sound pretty accurate. If gun owners are angry, it\'s not because we feel let down that the government hasn\'t taken good care of us. It\'s because we feel the government won\'t let us take care of ourselves!

But gun owners are angry about things like the D.C. Gun Ban, the attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms and .50 caliber rifles, legislation to track our ammunition purchases and to end private transfers of firearms, and all the other gun-control legislation that\'s designed to crack down on us instead of violent criminals. 

The presidential candidates would serve themselves well by reading Brooks\' Wall Street Journal article. What they learn about gun owners might surprise them. \";}i:5;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:14:\"A Lawless City\";s:11:\"description\";s:1405:\"The news out of Philadelphia seems to be changing every day. Mayor Michael Nutter signs gun-control bills and tells the local police to enforce them. The NRA receives a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the law, but at the same time the district attorney says she won\'t enforce them. But Nutter says he\'s going to try to convince her to prosecute people who violate these ordinances. 

What do Philadelphians think about this? If columnist Christine Flowers of the Philadelphia Daily News is any indication, they\'re probably disgusted by the shameless political theater put on by their elected officials. She writes of the mayor and council:

"... acting like defiant and belligerent children when we don\'t get our way isn\'t going to solve [violent crime] problems. It\'s just going to confirm what the people in northeastern and western and central Pennsylvania already think of us: that we\'re a lawless city."

As she points out, the City Council\'s actions only make people think of Philly as a lawless city, a place where politicians don\'t care about the rule of law or the Constitution. And if the leaders don\'t care to follow the law, how can they expect the residents to follow the law?\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=389\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:14:\"A Lawless City\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1405:\"The news out of Philadelphia seems to be changing every day. Mayor Michael Nutter signs gun-control bills and tells the local police to enforce them. The NRA receives a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the law, but at the same time the district attorney says she won\'t enforce them. But Nutter says he\'s going to try to convince her to prosecute people who violate these ordinances. 

What do Philadelphians think about this? If columnist Christine Flowers of the Philadelphia Daily News is any indication, they\'re probably disgusted by the shameless political theater put on by their elected officials. She writes of the mayor and council:

"... acting like defiant and belligerent children when we don\'t get our way isn\'t going to solve [violent crime] problems. It\'s just going to confirm what the people in northeastern and western and central Pennsylvania already think of us: that we\'re a lawless city."

As she points out, the City Council\'s actions only make people think of Philly as a lawless city, a place where politicians don\'t care about the rule of law or the Constitution. And if the leaders don\'t care to follow the law, how can they expect the residents to follow the law?\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1405:\"The news out of Philadelphia seems to be changing every day. Mayor Michael Nutter signs gun-control bills and tells the local police to enforce them. The NRA receives a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the law, but at the same time the district attorney says she won\'t enforce them. But Nutter says he\'s going to try to convince her to prosecute people who violate these ordinances. 

What do Philadelphians think about this? If columnist Christine Flowers of the Philadelphia Daily News is any indication, they\'re probably disgusted by the shameless political theater put on by their elected officials. She writes of the mayor and council:

"... acting like defiant and belligerent children when we don\'t get our way isn\'t going to solve [violent crime] problems. It\'s just going to confirm what the people in northeastern and western and central Pennsylvania already think of us: that we\'re a lawless city."

As she points out, the City Council\'s actions only make people think of Philly as a lawless city, a place where politicians don\'t care about the rule of law or the Constitution. And if the leaders don\'t care to follow the law, how can they expect the residents to follow the law?\";}i:6;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:30:\"Obama and the Joyce Foundation\";s:11:\"description\";s:1847:\"The press is finally starting to notice Barack Obama\'s problem with gun owners.  Politico notes that Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to gun-control groups. In fact, Politico\'s Kenneth Vogel reports that Obama thought about taking over as head of the Joyce Foundation, but decided to focus on politics instead. 

The Joyce Foundation gave $21 million to anti-gun groups while the senator served on the board, yet now the head of the Joyce Foundation is trying to claim the group doesn\'t just fund gun-banners. 

Ellen Alberding told Politico, "We\'re not promoting a particular solution. We\'re promoting really smart people to think about problems and come up with ideas on how to solve them."  That\'s baloney. From the Violence Policy Center to Ohioans Against Gun Violence, the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Education Fund, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and many others, the Joyce Foundation gives its money to groups that have never supported gun ownership. When was the last time any of those groups came out in support of a pro-Second Amendment law? The answer is never. 

The shameless attempts to disguise Obama\'s record on the Second Amendment has caused the candidate to make the claim that he doesn\'t know enough about the D.C. Gun Ban case to offer an opinion. It\'s forced other Democrats to distance themselves from Obama, because they represent pro-Second Amendment constituencies. And now the Joyce Foundation can\'t even come clean about their point of view ... all because Obama and his supporters can\'t let Americans find out just what he thinks about your right to keep and bear arms.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=388\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:30:\"Obama and the Joyce Foundation\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1847:\"The press is finally starting to notice Barack Obama\'s problem with gun owners.  Politico notes that Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to gun-control groups. In fact, Politico\'s Kenneth Vogel reports that Obama thought about taking over as head of the Joyce Foundation, but decided to focus on politics instead. 

The Joyce Foundation gave $21 million to anti-gun groups while the senator served on the board, yet now the head of the Joyce Foundation is trying to claim the group doesn\'t just fund gun-banners. 

Ellen Alberding told Politico, "We\'re not promoting a particular solution. We\'re promoting really smart people to think about problems and come up with ideas on how to solve them."  That\'s baloney. From the Violence Policy Center to Ohioans Against Gun Violence, the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Education Fund, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and many others, the Joyce Foundation gives its money to groups that have never supported gun ownership. When was the last time any of those groups came out in support of a pro-Second Amendment law? The answer is never. 

The shameless attempts to disguise Obama\'s record on the Second Amendment has caused the candidate to make the claim that he doesn\'t know enough about the D.C. Gun Ban case to offer an opinion. It\'s forced other Democrats to distance themselves from Obama, because they represent pro-Second Amendment constituencies. And now the Joyce Foundation can\'t even come clean about their point of view ... all because Obama and his supporters can\'t let Americans find out just what he thinks about your right to keep and bear arms.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1847:\"The press is finally starting to notice Barack Obama\'s problem with gun owners.  Politico notes that Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to gun-control groups. In fact, Politico\'s Kenneth Vogel reports that Obama thought about taking over as head of the Joyce Foundation, but decided to focus on politics instead. 

The Joyce Foundation gave $21 million to anti-gun groups while the senator served on the board, yet now the head of the Joyce Foundation is trying to claim the group doesn\'t just fund gun-banners. 

Ellen Alberding told Politico, "We\'re not promoting a particular solution. We\'re promoting really smart people to think about problems and come up with ideas on how to solve them."  That\'s baloney. From the Violence Policy Center to Ohioans Against Gun Violence, the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Education Fund, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and many others, the Joyce Foundation gives its money to groups that have never supported gun ownership. When was the last time any of those groups came out in support of a pro-Second Amendment law? The answer is never. 

The shameless attempts to disguise Obama\'s record on the Second Amendment has caused the candidate to make the claim that he doesn\'t know enough about the D.C. Gun Ban case to offer an opinion. It\'s forced other Democrats to distance themselves from Obama, because they represent pro-Second Amendment constituencies. And now the Joyce Foundation can\'t even come clean about their point of view ... all because Obama and his supporters can\'t let Americans find out just what he thinks about your right to keep and bear arms.\";}i:7;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:21:\"Getting Soft on Crime\";s:11:\"description\";s:2461:\"For years, critics of The New York Times have complained about the pervasive bias in the paper\'s news articles. Gun owners have seen countless stories that are factually incorrect or contain scare quotes from anti-gunners without any counter from the NRA. But this anti-gun bias seems to have grown into something that may be even worse: a pro-crime message.

Reporter David Dunlap was recently assaulted in midtown Manhattan by a man who was upset that the reporter was taking pictures of an illegal activity (signs being illegally posted on light poles). Dunlap was thrown to the ground and beaten, and his camera was smashed. But Dunlap says he won\'t press charges.

"I\'m not inclined to press charges. While my assailant\'s actions were frightening, they resulted in part from what he interpreted as provocation: that is, my taking pictures after he had explicitly warned me not to. He did not take my wallet, cash or briefcase; something he could easily have done while I was on the ground. Nor do I recall him using much more force than was needed to wrest the camera from me. He didn\'t kick me gratuitously when I was down. He did what he threatened to do, but no more."

So if a rapist tells you he\'s going to rape you, doesn\'t use "much more force than was needed," doesn\'t rob you, and only does what he threatens to do, should he get off the hook?

Dunlap saves his anger for the company that presumably employed the attacker, Def Jam/Island Records. But most of the people commenting on this story are pleading with Dunlap to press charges. They understand that if this man faces no consequences for his assault, he\'ll likely feel free to commit another. Too bad Dunlap seems more concerned with seeing a corporation answer for the criminal action of an employee rather than seeing a criminal face justice for his assault on an innocent man. 

I have a message for David Dunlap. You were the victim of a crime. But your refusal to prosecute your attacker may lead to other crimes being committed by the same man. And they may not all end with "just a bruise" and a broken camera. Getting tough on crime isn\'t just the job of politicians. We have our role to play as well if we want to see our streets become safer.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=387\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:21:\"Getting Soft on Crime\";s:7:\"summary\";s:2461:\"For years, critics of The New York Times have complained about the pervasive bias in the paper\'s news articles. Gun owners have seen countless stories that are factually incorrect or contain scare quotes from anti-gunners without any counter from the NRA. But this anti-gun bias seems to have grown into something that may be even worse: a pro-crime message.

Reporter David Dunlap was recently assaulted in midtown Manhattan by a man who was upset that the reporter was taking pictures of an illegal activity (signs being illegally posted on light poles). Dunlap was thrown to the ground and beaten, and his camera was smashed. But Dunlap says he won\'t press charges.

"I\'m not inclined to press charges. While my assailant\'s actions were frightening, they resulted in part from what he interpreted as provocation: that is, my taking pictures after he had explicitly warned me not to. He did not take my wallet, cash or briefcase; something he could easily have done while I was on the ground. Nor do I recall him using much more force than was needed to wrest the camera from me. He didn\'t kick me gratuitously when I was down. He did what he threatened to do, but no more."

So if a rapist tells you he\'s going to rape you, doesn\'t use "much more force than was needed," doesn\'t rob you, and only does what he threatens to do, should he get off the hook?

Dunlap saves his anger for the company that presumably employed the attacker, Def Jam/Island Records. But most of the people commenting on this story are pleading with Dunlap to press charges. They understand that if this man faces no consequences for his assault, he\'ll likely feel free to commit another. Too bad Dunlap seems more concerned with seeing a corporation answer for the criminal action of an employee rather than seeing a criminal face justice for his assault on an innocent man. 

I have a message for David Dunlap. You were the victim of a crime. But your refusal to prosecute your attacker may lead to other crimes being committed by the same man. And they may not all end with "just a bruise" and a broken camera. Getting tough on crime isn\'t just the job of politicians. We have our role to play as well if we want to see our streets become safer.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:2461:\"For years, critics of The New York Times have complained about the pervasive bias in the paper\'s news articles. Gun owners have seen countless stories that are factually incorrect or contain scare quotes from anti-gunners without any counter from the NRA. But this anti-gun bias seems to have grown into something that may be even worse: a pro-crime message.

Reporter David Dunlap was recently assaulted in midtown Manhattan by a man who was upset that the reporter was taking pictures of an illegal activity (signs being illegally posted on light poles). Dunlap was thrown to the ground and beaten, and his camera was smashed. But Dunlap says he won\'t press charges.

"I\'m not inclined to press charges. While my assailant\'s actions were frightening, they resulted in part from what he interpreted as provocation: that is, my taking pictures after he had explicitly warned me not to. He did not take my wallet, cash or briefcase; something he could easily have done while I was on the ground. Nor do I recall him using much more force than was needed to wrest the camera from me. He didn\'t kick me gratuitously when I was down. He did what he threatened to do, but no more."

So if a rapist tells you he\'s going to rape you, doesn\'t use "much more force than was needed," doesn\'t rob you, and only does what he threatens to do, should he get off the hook?

Dunlap saves his anger for the company that presumably employed the attacker, Def Jam/Island Records. But most of the people commenting on this story are pleading with Dunlap to press charges. They understand that if this man faces no consequences for his assault, he\'ll likely feel free to commit another. Too bad Dunlap seems more concerned with seeing a corporation answer for the criminal action of an employee rather than seeing a criminal face justice for his assault on an innocent man. 

I have a message for David Dunlap. You were the victim of a crime. But your refusal to prosecute your attacker may lead to other crimes being committed by the same man. And they may not all end with "just a bruise" and a broken camera. Getting tough on crime isn\'t just the job of politicians. We have our role to play as well if we want to see our streets become safer.\";}i:8;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:14:\"Banning Murder\";s:11:\"description\";s:1099:\"Los Angeles, California, almost banned murder. Almost. 

It turns out the City Council realized that a symbolic 40-hour ban on homicides might just be the dumbest thing anyone\'s ever tried to do to fight crime, because murder is already illegal. But that didn\'t stop activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson from urging the council to take the "bold step." 

You know what would be a really bold step? The City Council banning plea bargains for 40 hours. That\'s right: eight hours a day for five days banning the practice of plea bargains for violent criminals. Rapists and robbers get sentenced to the full amount of time for their crimes, rather than simply walking away after a short stint behind bars. Career criminals actually get the time coming to them under the state\'s "Three Strikes" law, rather than having their violent felonies pleaded away. Now that\'s a bold statement. Too bad the City Council would never consider it.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=386\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:14:\"Banning Murder\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1099:\"Los Angeles, California, almost banned murder. Almost. 

It turns out the City Council realized that a symbolic 40-hour ban on homicides might just be the dumbest thing anyone\'s ever tried to do to fight crime, because murder is already illegal. But that didn\'t stop activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson from urging the council to take the "bold step." 

You know what would be a really bold step? The City Council banning plea bargains for 40 hours. That\'s right: eight hours a day for five days banning the practice of plea bargains for violent criminals. Rapists and robbers get sentenced to the full amount of time for their crimes, rather than simply walking away after a short stint behind bars. Career criminals actually get the time coming to them under the state\'s "Three Strikes" law, rather than having their violent felonies pleaded away. Now that\'s a bold statement. Too bad the City Council would never consider it.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1099:\"Los Angeles, California, almost banned murder. Almost. 

It turns out the City Council realized that a symbolic 40-hour ban on homicides might just be the dumbest thing anyone\'s ever tried to do to fight crime, because murder is already illegal. But that didn\'t stop activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson from urging the council to take the "bold step." 

You know what would be a really bold step? The City Council banning plea bargains for 40 hours. That\'s right: eight hours a day for five days banning the practice of plea bargains for violent criminals. Rapists and robbers get sentenced to the full amount of time for their crimes, rather than simply walking away after a short stint behind bars. Career criminals actually get the time coming to them under the state\'s "Three Strikes" law, rather than having their violent felonies pleaded away. Now that\'s a bold statement. Too bad the City Council would never consider it.\";}i:9;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:22:\"The Truth About Philly\";s:11:\"description\";s:2470:\"If you know someone who lives in Philadelphia, send this to them. If you live in Philadelphia, listen now or lose later:

Your elected officials and local media aren\'t telling you the truth about new gun control laws they want to impose on you, and you deserve to know the whole story.

Mayor Nutter and the City Council say the city will enforce these new rules, including a ban on many semi-automatic rifles, a one-gun-a-month restriction, and a bill that would turn crime victims into criminals if they fail to report a firearm lost or stolen within 24 hours of when they "should" have known the gun was gone. 

Nutter and his cohorts say these laws will reduce crime. That\'s a joke, because these laws aren\'t designed to reduce crime. They\'re designed to deceive ... deceive you into thinking your elected leaders are serious about making your city safer.

Do you know what the punishment is for violating one of these new "laws"? A $300 fine and a maximum 90-day jail sentence. Mayor Nutter and the media haven\'t told you that. 

Now think about the people committing violent crimes in your city. Do you really think a fine and a possible three-month jail sentence is going to stop them from robbing you? From invading your home? From taking your life or the life of your child? Most of these criminals have already done time. And the time they serve is rarely as long as the sentences they\'re given. 

The truth is, there is no easy answer to Philadelphia\'s crime problem. Tougher sentences that keep career criminals off the streets are part of the solution. But the city should also be investing in proven anti-gang programs that can reach young children before they become involved in criminal activity. Residents have to take back their neighborhoods in partnership with local government. People aren\'t going to stand up to the criminals until and unless they know the city is going to do something when they\'re alerted to problems. 

Your politicians want you to believe that they\'ve done something remarkable in standing up to the state legislature. The fact is, they\'ve only engaged in more political theater. And while they\'re play-acting at solving the crime problem, your neighborhoods are still at risk. 

It\'s time you demanded more. It\'s time you demanded real results, not just more empty promises. \";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=385\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:22:\"The Truth About Philly\";s:7:\"summary\";s:2470:\"If you know someone who lives in Philadelphia, send this to them. If you live in Philadelphia, listen now or lose later:

Your elected officials and local media aren\'t telling you the truth about new gun control laws they want to impose on you, and you deserve to know the whole story.

Mayor Nutter and the City Council say the city will enforce these new rules, including a ban on many semi-automatic rifles, a one-gun-a-month restriction, and a bill that would turn crime victims into criminals if they fail to report a firearm lost or stolen within 24 hours of when they "should" have known the gun was gone. 

Nutter and his cohorts say these laws will reduce crime. That\'s a joke, because these laws aren\'t designed to reduce crime. They\'re designed to deceive ... deceive you into thinking your elected leaders are serious about making your city safer.

Do you know what the punishment is for violating one of these new "laws"? A $300 fine and a maximum 90-day jail sentence. Mayor Nutter and the media haven\'t told you that. 

Now think about the people committing violent crimes in your city. Do you really think a fine and a possible three-month jail sentence is going to stop them from robbing you? From invading your home? From taking your life or the life of your child? Most of these criminals have already done time. And the time they serve is rarely as long as the sentences they\'re given. 

The truth is, there is no easy answer to Philadelphia\'s crime problem. Tougher sentences that keep career criminals off the streets are part of the solution. But the city should also be investing in proven anti-gang programs that can reach young children before they become involved in criminal activity. Residents have to take back their neighborhoods in partnership with local government. People aren\'t going to stand up to the criminals until and unless they know the city is going to do something when they\'re alerted to problems. 

Your politicians want you to believe that they\'ve done something remarkable in standing up to the state legislature. The fact is, they\'ve only engaged in more political theater. And while they\'re play-acting at solving the crime problem, your neighborhoods are still at risk. 

It\'s time you demanded more. It\'s time you demanded real results, not just more empty promises. \";}s:7:\"summary\";s:2470:\"If you know someone who lives in Philadelphia, send this to them. If you live in Philadelphia, listen now or lose later:

Your elected officials and local media aren\'t telling you the truth about new gun control laws they want to impose on you, and you deserve to know the whole story.

Mayor Nutter and the City Council say the city will enforce these new rules, including a ban on many semi-automatic rifles, a one-gun-a-month restriction, and a bill that would turn crime victims into criminals if they fail to report a firearm lost or stolen within 24 hours of when they "should" have known the gun was gone. 

Nutter and his cohorts say these laws will reduce crime. That\'s a joke, because these laws aren\'t designed to reduce crime. They\'re designed to deceive ... deceive you into thinking your elected leaders are serious about making your city safer.

Do you know what the punishment is for violating one of these new "laws"? A $300 fine and a maximum 90-day jail sentence. Mayor Nutter and the media haven\'t told you that. 

Now think about the people committing violent crimes in your city. Do you really think a fine and a possible three-month jail sentence is going to stop them from robbing you? From invading your home? From taking your life or the life of your child? Most of these criminals have already done time. And the time they serve is rarely as long as the sentences they\'re given. 

The truth is, there is no easy answer to Philadelphia\'s crime problem. Tougher sentences that keep career criminals off the streets are part of the solution. But the city should also be investing in proven anti-gang programs that can reach young children before they become involved in criminal activity. Residents have to take back their neighborhoods in partnership with local government. People aren\'t going to stand up to the criminals until and unless they know the city is going to do something when they\'re alerted to problems. 

Your politicians want you to believe that they\'ve done something remarkable in standing up to the state legislature. The fact is, they\'ve only engaged in more political theater. And while they\'re play-acting at solving the crime problem, your neighborhoods are still at risk. 

It\'s time you demanded more. It\'s time you demanded real results, not just more empty promises. \";}i:10;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:27:\"Bloomberg, Wal-Mart and You\";s:11:\"description\";s:1448:\"New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s latest volley in his war on gun ownership is convincing Wal-Mart that they need to film every firearm purchase.

The goal, according to the mayor, is to reduce crime. But we know gun control doesn\'t equal crime control. And this reeks of a public relations stunt instead of a crime-fighting measure. 

Gun owners who buy a firearm at Wal-Mart, or any other gun store for that matter, already go through a background check before the purchase can be made. What\'s the point of videotaping someone making a legal purchase of a product, other than simple harassment? To put it another way, every day Wal-Mart sells thousands of prescription medications that, if used improperly, can result in sickness or death. Are they going to start implementing these same rules at their pharmacies, too? 

It\'s been three years since Bloomberg held his first anti-gun summit in Washington, D.C., and he\'s had no success to show for it. Legislators have stood up to his anti-gun bullying because they know that what he\'s proposing isn\'t about crime. It\'s about demonizing gun ownership in general. 

It\'s too bad Wal-Mart\'s putting political correctness above treating their customers with respect.  If Sam Walton had treated his customers like this back when Wal-Mart was just a dime store in Arkansas, I doubt the company would still be in business.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=384\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:27:\"Bloomberg, Wal-Mart and You\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1448:\"New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s latest volley in his war on gun ownership is convincing Wal-Mart that they need to film every firearm purchase.

The goal, according to the mayor, is to reduce crime. But we know gun control doesn\'t equal crime control. And this reeks of a public relations stunt instead of a crime-fighting measure. 

Gun owners who buy a firearm at Wal-Mart, or any other gun store for that matter, already go through a background check before the purchase can be made. What\'s the point of videotaping someone making a legal purchase of a product, other than simple harassment? To put it another way, every day Wal-Mart sells thousands of prescription medications that, if used improperly, can result in sickness or death. Are they going to start implementing these same rules at their pharmacies, too? 

It\'s been three years since Bloomberg held his first anti-gun summit in Washington, D.C., and he\'s had no success to show for it. Legislators have stood up to his anti-gun bullying because they know that what he\'s proposing isn\'t about crime. It\'s about demonizing gun ownership in general. 

It\'s too bad Wal-Mart\'s putting political correctness above treating their customers with respect.  If Sam Walton had treated his customers like this back when Wal-Mart was just a dime store in Arkansas, I doubt the company would still be in business.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1448:\"New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s latest volley in his war on gun ownership is convincing Wal-Mart that they need to film every firearm purchase.

The goal, according to the mayor, is to reduce crime. But we know gun control doesn\'t equal crime control. And this reeks of a public relations stunt instead of a crime-fighting measure. 

Gun owners who buy a firearm at Wal-Mart, or any other gun store for that matter, already go through a background check before the purchase can be made. What\'s the point of videotaping someone making a legal purchase of a product, other than simple harassment? To put it another way, every day Wal-Mart sells thousands of prescription medications that, if used improperly, can result in sickness or death. Are they going to start implementing these same rules at their pharmacies, too? 

It\'s been three years since Bloomberg held his first anti-gun summit in Washington, D.C., and he\'s had no success to show for it. Legislators have stood up to his anti-gun bullying because they know that what he\'s proposing isn\'t about crime. It\'s about demonizing gun ownership in general. 

It\'s too bad Wal-Mart\'s putting political correctness above treating their customers with respect.  If Sam Walton had treated his customers like this back when Wal-Mart was just a dime store in Arkansas, I doubt the company would still be in business.\";}i:11;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:16:\"They\'re Both Bad\";s:11:\"description\";s:1305:\"

As more and more Americans express their disgust over Barack Obama\'s recent comments that small-town Americans "cling to" gun ownership and religious faith because they\'re "bitter", his Democratic opponent is trying to turn up the heat. Hillary Clinton tried to express her support for the Second Amendment over the weekend, leading Obama to fire back: "She\'s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She\'s talking like she\'s Annie Oakley".

American gun owners have for years understood the elitist concept of special privileges for the few. The same few who look down their nose at the people who respect basic American traditions like flying the flag, going to church, owning a gun and believing in the Bill of Rights. Obama\'s statement is a crack in the door that gives all of us a peek at how the \'special\' people look at the rest of us. Americans can read that code.

The truth is, both Obama and Clinton have long anti-gun records. Hopefully Obama and Clinton will continue to point out how anti-gun the other one is. It just makes my job that much easier.

\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=383\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:16:\"They\'re Both Bad\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1305:\"

As more and more Americans express their disgust over Barack Obama\'s recent comments that small-town Americans "cling to" gun ownership and religious faith because they\'re "bitter", his Democratic opponent is trying to turn up the heat. Hillary Clinton tried to express her support for the Second Amendment over the weekend, leading Obama to fire back: "She\'s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She\'s talking like she\'s Annie Oakley".

American gun owners have for years understood the elitist concept of special privileges for the few. The same few who look down their nose at the people who respect basic American traditions like flying the flag, going to church, owning a gun and believing in the Bill of Rights. Obama\'s statement is a crack in the door that gives all of us a peek at how the \'special\' people look at the rest of us. Americans can read that code.

The truth is, both Obama and Clinton have long anti-gun records. Hopefully Obama and Clinton will continue to point out how anti-gun the other one is. It just makes my job that much easier.

\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1305:\"

As more and more Americans express their disgust over Barack Obama\'s recent comments that small-town Americans "cling to" gun ownership and religious faith because they\'re "bitter", his Democratic opponent is trying to turn up the heat. Hillary Clinton tried to express her support for the Second Amendment over the weekend, leading Obama to fire back: "She\'s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She\'s talking like she\'s Annie Oakley".

American gun owners have for years understood the elitist concept of special privileges for the few. The same few who look down their nose at the people who respect basic American traditions like flying the flag, going to church, owning a gun and believing in the Bill of Rights. Obama\'s statement is a crack in the door that gives all of us a peek at how the \'special\' people look at the rest of us. Americans can read that code.

The truth is, both Obama and Clinton have long anti-gun records. Hopefully Obama and Clinton will continue to point out how anti-gun the other one is. It just makes my job that much easier.

\";}i:12;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:22:\"Afraid of the Children\";s:11:\"description\";s:1679:\"As if we needed any more evidence that England\'s gun ban has been a total failure, just look at the recent story from Time magazine. Twenty percent of Britons surveyed say they fear leaving their homes at night because of the rising tide of violent teens. 

Violent crime committed by those under the age of 18 has climbed by more than a third in the past three years, with no sign of it falling any time soon. These violent teens are partly responsible for the rise in knife- and gun-related crime in the country. Yes, crimes involving firearms are increasing, even though it\'s been a decade since the country banned handguns. 

Talk to a former British gun owner, and he or she will tell you, "Don\'t let it happen in America."  Gun bans don\'t work to reduce crime. They haven\'t worked in D.C., and they haven\'t worked in England. A "tough-on-guns/soft-on-crime" approach is lunacy, but that\'s exactly what they\'re doing in England. Frankly, it\'s what the gun-banning politicians are trying to do in Philadelphia right now, by pushing for more gun control laws without even mentioning the criminals committing the violent crimes.

Every day politicians try to blame law-abiding gun owners for violent crime is another day lost in our fight against the gang members and drug dealers who target our children. How long will the politicians play the blame game instead of tackling the problem head-on? Do things have to get so bad that we\'re afraid to leave our homes? Do we have to wait until we turn into England?\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=382\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:22:\"Afraid of the Children\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1679:\"As if we needed any more evidence that England\'s gun ban has been a total failure, just look at the recent story from Time magazine. Twenty percent of Britons surveyed say they fear leaving their homes at night because of the rising tide of violent teens. 

Violent crime committed by those under the age of 18 has climbed by more than a third in the past three years, with no sign of it falling any time soon. These violent teens are partly responsible for the rise in knife- and gun-related crime in the country. Yes, crimes involving firearms are increasing, even though it\'s been a decade since the country banned handguns. 

Talk to a former British gun owner, and he or she will tell you, "Don\'t let it happen in America."  Gun bans don\'t work to reduce crime. They haven\'t worked in D.C., and they haven\'t worked in England. A "tough-on-guns/soft-on-crime" approach is lunacy, but that\'s exactly what they\'re doing in England. Frankly, it\'s what the gun-banning politicians are trying to do in Philadelphia right now, by pushing for more gun control laws without even mentioning the criminals committing the violent crimes.

Every day politicians try to blame law-abiding gun owners for violent crime is another day lost in our fight against the gang members and drug dealers who target our children. How long will the politicians play the blame game instead of tackling the problem head-on? Do things have to get so bad that we\'re afraid to leave our homes? Do we have to wait until we turn into England?\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1679:\"As if we needed any more evidence that England\'s gun ban has been a total failure, just look at the recent story from Time magazine. Twenty percent of Britons surveyed say they fear leaving their homes at night because of the rising tide of violent teens. 

Violent crime committed by those under the age of 18 has climbed by more than a third in the past three years, with no sign of it falling any time soon. These violent teens are partly responsible for the rise in knife- and gun-related crime in the country. Yes, crimes involving firearms are increasing, even though it\'s been a decade since the country banned handguns. 

Talk to a former British gun owner, and he or she will tell you, "Don\'t let it happen in America."  Gun bans don\'t work to reduce crime. They haven\'t worked in D.C., and they haven\'t worked in England. A "tough-on-guns/soft-on-crime" approach is lunacy, but that\'s exactly what they\'re doing in England. Frankly, it\'s what the gun-banning politicians are trying to do in Philadelphia right now, by pushing for more gun control laws without even mentioning the criminals committing the violent crimes.

Every day politicians try to blame law-abiding gun owners for violent crime is another day lost in our fight against the gang members and drug dealers who target our children. How long will the politicians play the blame game instead of tackling the problem head-on? Do things have to get so bad that we\'re afraid to leave our homes? Do we have to wait until we turn into England?\";}i:13;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:32:\"America Has Lost A Great Patriot\";s:11:\"description\";s:1388:\"

Statement of Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America:

Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston. America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.

My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.

And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us - the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause as I am to have known him as my friend.

But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers, and they will always have my friendship.

\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=381\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Sun, 06 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:32:\"America Has Lost A Great Patriot\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1388:\"

Statement of Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America:

Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston. America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.

My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.

And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us - the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause as I am to have known him as my friend.

But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers, and they will always have my friendship.

\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1388:\"

Statement of Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America:

Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston. America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.

My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.

And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us - the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause as I am to have known him as my friend.

But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers, and they will always have my friendship.

\";}i:14;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:16:\"Enforce the Laws\";s:11:\"description\";s:2585:\"Did you know that robberies in the home, or home invasions, are up nearly 50 percent since 2000? The New York Times discovered the fact that home invasions are on the rise when they took a look at what states are doing. 

It turns out more states are thinking about increasing the sentences for committing a home invasion. But the Times interviewed a law enforcement officer with an interesting perspective.

Lt. Jay Markella, spokesman for the Cheshire, Connecticut, police department, told the Times: "Let\'s see how the cases go through the court system and if the law is used or taken off the table during a plea bargain. You can create all the new laws you want, but if they are not applied properly, there\'s really no gain."

The Times went on to report, "Lieutenant Markella also said that if current burglary and assault laws were applied to their full extent, with maximum penalties and consecutive sentences, the new law would not be needed."

In other words, these new laws aren\'t really necessary, and may only serve as another empty promise by politicians who seek to treat the symptoms of violent crime, not the disease itself. Making something "more illegal" doesn\'t do anything if you\'re still not putting the home invaders behind bars for their crimes. And Lt. Markella sounds a lot like NRA members who say we don\'t need more gun control laws, we just need to enforce the laws on the books.

It\'s too bad Lt. Markella went on to say that owning a gun won\'t help against home invasions.  Police in Memphis, Tennessee, would disagree. So would police in Tucker, Georgia. 

And in the meantime, as politicians debate adding more criminal charges that will most likely be plea-bargained away, more and more Americans are becoming gun owners in order to protect themselves from the violent criminals that slip through the system. Gun control doesn\'t equal public safety. Crime control does. The two are very different things, and more Americans are realizing that every day.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=379\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:16:\"Enforce the Laws\";s:7:\"summary\";s:2585:\"Did you know that robberies in the home, or home invasions, are up nearly 50 percent since 2000? The New York Times discovered the fact that home invasions are on the rise when they took a look at what states are doing. 

It turns out more states are thinking about increasing the sentences for committing a home invasion. But the Times interviewed a law enforcement officer with an interesting perspective.

Lt. Jay Markella, spokesman for the Cheshire, Connecticut, police department, told the Times: "Let\'s see how the cases go through the court system and if the law is used or taken off the table during a plea bargain. You can create all the new laws you want, but if they are not applied properly, there\'s really no gain."

The Times went on to report, "Lieutenant Markella also said that if current burglary and assault laws were applied to their full extent, with maximum penalties and consecutive sentences, the new law would not be needed."

In other words, these new laws aren\'t really necessary, and may only serve as another empty promise by politicians who seek to treat the symptoms of violent crime, not the disease itself. Making something "more illegal" doesn\'t do anything if you\'re still not putting the home invaders behind bars for their crimes. And Lt. Markella sounds a lot like NRA members who say we don\'t need more gun control laws, we just need to enforce the laws on the books.

It\'s too bad Lt. Markella went on to say that owning a gun won\'t help against home invasions.  Police in Memphis, Tennessee, would disagree. So would police in Tucker, Georgia. 

And in the meantime, as politicians debate adding more criminal charges that will most likely be plea-bargained away, more and more Americans are becoming gun owners in order to protect themselves from the violent criminals that slip through the system. Gun control doesn\'t equal public safety. Crime control does. The two are very different things, and more Americans are realizing that every day.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:2585:\"Did you know that robberies in the home, or home invasions, are up nearly 50 percent since 2000? The New York Times discovered the fact that home invasions are on the rise when they took a look at what states are doing. 

It turns out more states are thinking about increasing the sentences for committing a home invasion. But the Times interviewed a law enforcement officer with an interesting perspective.

Lt. Jay Markella, spokesman for the Cheshire, Connecticut, police department, told the Times: "Let\'s see how the cases go through the court system and if the law is used or taken off the table during a plea bargain. You can create all the new laws you want, but if they are not applied properly, there\'s really no gain."

The Times went on to report, "Lieutenant Markella also said that if current burglary and assault laws were applied to their full extent, with maximum penalties and consecutive sentences, the new law would not be needed."

In other words, these new laws aren\'t really necessary, and may only serve as another empty promise by politicians who seek to treat the symptoms of violent crime, not the disease itself. Making something "more illegal" doesn\'t do anything if you\'re still not putting the home invaders behind bars for their crimes. And Lt. Markella sounds a lot like NRA members who say we don\'t need more gun control laws, we just need to enforce the laws on the books.

It\'s too bad Lt. Markella went on to say that owning a gun won\'t help against home invasions.  Police in Memphis, Tennessee, would disagree. So would police in Tucker, Georgia. 

And in the meantime, as politicians debate adding more criminal charges that will most likely be plea-bargained away, more and more Americans are becoming gun owners in order to protect themselves from the violent criminals that slip through the system. Gun control doesn\'t equal public safety. Crime control does. The two are very different things, and more Americans are realizing that every day.\";}i:15;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:20:\"The Sound of Silence\";s:11:\"description\";s:1241:\"I read a heartbreaking story the other day.  A woman is on the phone with 911 to report a burglar in her home.  Dispatchers hear gunshots, then silence.  When deputies arrive, the homeowner is dead. 

Her husband arrives a few minutes later, only to be told that his wife is dead.  News reports say "he collapsed and started to cry, saying \'No! She just called me. You lie.\'"

The real lie is that gun control and gun bans make us safer.  All they do is put innocent people at risk of violent criminals.  In 2005, the FBI says there were more than 2,000,000 burglaries in this country.  There were also more than 400,000 robberies.  If you were one of the millions of victims of crime, would you not want the option to defend yourself with a firearm? 

Gun bans like Washington, D.C.\'s only affect the law abiding.  They don\'t disarm criminals, but they ensure that residents are left with one option:  call 911 and hope helps arrive before it’s too late.  And sadly, we know all too well how that often works out.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=378\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:20:\"The Sound of Silence\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1241:\"I read a heartbreaking story the other day.  A woman is on the phone with 911 to report a burglar in her home.  Dispatchers hear gunshots, then silence.  When deputies arrive, the homeowner is dead. 

Her husband arrives a few minutes later, only to be told that his wife is dead.  News reports say "he collapsed and started to cry, saying \'No! She just called me. You lie.\'"

The real lie is that gun control and gun bans make us safer.  All they do is put innocent people at risk of violent criminals.  In 2005, the FBI says there were more than 2,000,000 burglaries in this country.  There were also more than 400,000 robberies.  If you were one of the millions of victims of crime, would you not want the option to defend yourself with a firearm? 

Gun bans like Washington, D.C.\'s only affect the law abiding.  They don\'t disarm criminals, but they ensure that residents are left with one option:  call 911 and hope helps arrive before it’s too late.  And sadly, we know all too well how that often works out.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1241:\"I read a heartbreaking story the other day.  A woman is on the phone with 911 to report a burglar in her home.  Dispatchers hear gunshots, then silence.  When deputies arrive, the homeowner is dead. 

Her husband arrives a few minutes later, only to be told that his wife is dead.  News reports say "he collapsed and started to cry, saying \'No! She just called me. You lie.\'"

The real lie is that gun control and gun bans make us safer.  All they do is put innocent people at risk of violent criminals.  In 2005, the FBI says there were more than 2,000,000 burglaries in this country.  There were also more than 400,000 robberies.  If you were one of the millions of victims of crime, would you not want the option to defend yourself with a firearm? 

Gun bans like Washington, D.C.\'s only affect the law abiding.  They don\'t disarm criminals, but they ensure that residents are left with one option:  call 911 and hope helps arrive before it’s too late.  And sadly, we know all too well how that often works out.\";}i:16;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:24:\"Not A Knee Jerk Reaction\";s:11:\"description\";s:2078:\"Oklahoma\'s major newspaper, The Oklahoman, calls a bill that would extend Right to Carry (for some) onto college campuses a knee jerk reaction to mass killings like those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.  But like most media outlets, it\'s The Oklahoman that\'s offering a knee-jerk reaction: one that simply says, "Guns are bad."

Following The Oklahoman\'s logic that "in the case of a shooting, law enforcement would have a tough time figuring out the bad guys from the good guys," the paper should oppose ALL forms of Right to Carry.  That means the paper should be opposed to the more than 60,000 Oklahoma residents who are RTC holders.  And it means they think the Oklahomans who defended themselves and others should have been required to leave their guns at home. 

The argument The Oklahoman makes against extending Right to Carry is the same argument gun control advocates make against Right to Carry laws in general.  But we know, from ten years of experience in Oklahoma (and longer in other states), that Right to Carry holders and law enforcement are not at odds with one another.  They support each other. 

The bill in Oklahoma wouldn\'t change the requirements on who can get a Right to Carry license.  In fact, the bill doesn\'t even go as far as legislation introduced in other states.  In the Oklahoma bill, only those with 72 hours of law enforcement training or active duty and honorably discharged military veterans would be allowed to carry on campus.  Yet even this modest step forward is too much for the editorial board of the paper. 

You can\'t help but wonder why the paper has more faith that a madman won\'t target an Oklahoma campus than faith that a trained gun owner might be able to make a difference. \";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=377\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:24:\"Not A Knee Jerk Reaction\";s:7:\"summary\";s:2078:\"Oklahoma\'s major newspaper, The Oklahoman, calls a bill that would extend Right to Carry (for some) onto college campuses a knee jerk reaction to mass killings like those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.  But like most media outlets, it\'s The Oklahoman that\'s offering a knee-jerk reaction: one that simply says, "Guns are bad."

Following The Oklahoman\'s logic that "in the case of a shooting, law enforcement would have a tough time figuring out the bad guys from the good guys," the paper should oppose ALL forms of Right to Carry.  That means the paper should be opposed to the more than 60,000 Oklahoma residents who are RTC holders.  And it means they think the Oklahomans who defended themselves and others should have been required to leave their guns at home. 

The argument The Oklahoman makes against extending Right to Carry is the same argument gun control advocates make against Right to Carry laws in general.  But we know, from ten years of experience in Oklahoma (and longer in other states), that Right to Carry holders and law enforcement are not at odds with one another.  They support each other. 

The bill in Oklahoma wouldn\'t change the requirements on who can get a Right to Carry license.  In fact, the bill doesn\'t even go as far as legislation introduced in other states.  In the Oklahoma bill, only those with 72 hours of law enforcement training or active duty and honorably discharged military veterans would be allowed to carry on campus.  Yet even this modest step forward is too much for the editorial board of the paper. 

You can\'t help but wonder why the paper has more faith that a madman won\'t target an Oklahoma campus than faith that a trained gun owner might be able to make a difference. \";}s:7:\"summary\";s:2078:\"Oklahoma\'s major newspaper, The Oklahoman, calls a bill that would extend Right to Carry (for some) onto college campuses a knee jerk reaction to mass killings like those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.  But like most media outlets, it\'s The Oklahoman that\'s offering a knee-jerk reaction: one that simply says, "Guns are bad."

Following The Oklahoman\'s logic that "in the case of a shooting, law enforcement would have a tough time figuring out the bad guys from the good guys," the paper should oppose ALL forms of Right to Carry.  That means the paper should be opposed to the more than 60,000 Oklahoma residents who are RTC holders.  And it means they think the Oklahomans who defended themselves and others should have been required to leave their guns at home. 

The argument The Oklahoman makes against extending Right to Carry is the same argument gun control advocates make against Right to Carry laws in general.  But we know, from ten years of experience in Oklahoma (and longer in other states), that Right to Carry holders and law enforcement are not at odds with one another.  They support each other. 

The bill in Oklahoma wouldn\'t change the requirements on who can get a Right to Carry license.  In fact, the bill doesn\'t even go as far as legislation introduced in other states.  In the Oklahoma bill, only those with 72 hours of law enforcement training or active duty and honorably discharged military veterans would be allowed to carry on campus.  Yet even this modest step forward is too much for the editorial board of the paper. 

You can\'t help but wonder why the paper has more faith that a madman won\'t target an Oklahoma campus than faith that a trained gun owner might be able to make a difference. \";}i:17;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:20:\"D.C.\'s Home Invasion\";s:11:\"description\";s:1687:\"The District of Columbia is embarking on one of the most ill-conceived "public safety" plans I\'ve ever heard of.  They\'re asking residents to voluntarily open their homes up to searches for illegally possessed firearms, and as you can imagine, the plan is drawing a lot of heat. 

But it\'s not just gun owners complaining this time.  The ACLU is complaining, and the executive director of the National Black Police Association says he won\'t let officers in to search his home.

Besides the Big Brother mentality behind this initiative, Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chief Cathy Lanier should think about the danger this could pose to officers.  And frankly, given their hope that the parents of young gang members will call D.C. police and ask that officers search their homes for guns, they should think about the message they send when they announce that anybody found with an illegally possessed gun won\'t be prosecuted. 

It\'s another example of politicians targeting the gun instead of the violent criminal.  It\'s not going to reduce violent crime.  It\'s only going to tell criminals they can get away with violating the law, while putting officers at increased risk and encouraging an atmosphere of government intervention at all times, in all places. 

This plan should be scrapped before it can cause any damage.  And the politicians and politically appointed police chief should get back to doing what works:  locking up violent criminals and taking them off of the streets.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=376\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:20:\"D.C.\'s Home Invasion\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1687:\"The District of Columbia is embarking on one of the most ill-conceived "public safety" plans I\'ve ever heard of.  They\'re asking residents to voluntarily open their homes up to searches for illegally possessed firearms, and as you can imagine, the plan is drawing a lot of heat. 

But it\'s not just gun owners complaining this time.  The ACLU is complaining, and the executive director of the National Black Police Association says he won\'t let officers in to search his home.

Besides the Big Brother mentality behind this initiative, Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chief Cathy Lanier should think about the danger this could pose to officers.  And frankly, given their hope that the parents of young gang members will call D.C. police and ask that officers search their homes for guns, they should think about the message they send when they announce that anybody found with an illegally possessed gun won\'t be prosecuted. 

It\'s another example of politicians targeting the gun instead of the violent criminal.  It\'s not going to reduce violent crime.  It\'s only going to tell criminals they can get away with violating the law, while putting officers at increased risk and encouraging an atmosphere of government intervention at all times, in all places. 

This plan should be scrapped before it can cause any damage.  And the politicians and politically appointed police chief should get back to doing what works:  locking up violent criminals and taking them off of the streets.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1687:\"The District of Columbia is embarking on one of the most ill-conceived "public safety" plans I\'ve ever heard of.  They\'re asking residents to voluntarily open their homes up to searches for illegally possessed firearms, and as you can imagine, the plan is drawing a lot of heat. 

But it\'s not just gun owners complaining this time.  The ACLU is complaining, and the executive director of the National Black Police Association says he won\'t let officers in to search his home.

Besides the Big Brother mentality behind this initiative, Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chief Cathy Lanier should think about the danger this could pose to officers.  And frankly, given their hope that the parents of young gang members will call D.C. police and ask that officers search their homes for guns, they should think about the message they send when they announce that anybody found with an illegally possessed gun won\'t be prosecuted. 

It\'s another example of politicians targeting the gun instead of the violent criminal.  It\'s not going to reduce violent crime.  It\'s only going to tell criminals they can get away with violating the law, while putting officers at increased risk and encouraging an atmosphere of government intervention at all times, in all places. 

This plan should be scrapped before it can cause any damage.  And the politicians and politically appointed police chief should get back to doing what works:  locking up violent criminals and taking them off of the streets.\";}i:18;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:18:\"Making Parks Safer\";s:11:\"description\";s:1668:\"In the coming weeks, the U.S. Department of the Interior will announce proposed changes to the rules that bar the carrying and transporting of firearms in national parks. This comes after nearly five years of efforts by NRA-ILA and others to get rid of the rules that prevent law-abiding Right-to-Carry holders and gun owners from having to disarm and store their firearms in an inaccessible part of their vehicle.

Some opponents of the change say that you don\'t need access to a firearm in a national park. But these people ignore the fact that park rangers are wearing protective vests and carry semi-automatic rifles for self-defense from predators of the two- and four-legged variety. Heck, back in 2003 the media quoted David Barma, the chief spokesman for the National Park System, as saying, "The most [visitors] used to worry about is running into a grizzly bear. Now there is the specter of violence by a masked alien toting an AK-47." 

But now the media ignores the recent up-tick in violent crime in our national parks. And they ignore the fact that many parts of the national park system are, by their very nature, remote and rugged wilderness areas, where help isn\'t just a phone call away. 

I\'m glad that Congress isn\'t ignoring these facts, and I\'m very pleased the Department of the Interior is now keeping these facts in mind as they revise and update the rules for our national park system.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=375\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:18:\"Making Parks Safer\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1668:\"In the coming weeks, the U.S. Department of the Interior will announce proposed changes to the rules that bar the carrying and transporting of firearms in national parks. This comes after nearly five years of efforts by NRA-ILA and others to get rid of the rules that prevent law-abiding Right-to-Carry holders and gun owners from having to disarm and store their firearms in an inaccessible part of their vehicle.

Some opponents of the change say that you don\'t need access to a firearm in a national park. But these people ignore the fact that park rangers are wearing protective vests and carry semi-automatic rifles for self-defense from predators of the two- and four-legged variety. Heck, back in 2003 the media quoted David Barma, the chief spokesman for the National Park System, as saying, "The most [visitors] used to worry about is running into a grizzly bear. Now there is the specter of violence by a masked alien toting an AK-47." 

But now the media ignores the recent up-tick in violent crime in our national parks. And they ignore the fact that many parts of the national park system are, by their very nature, remote and rugged wilderness areas, where help isn\'t just a phone call away. 

I\'m glad that Congress isn\'t ignoring these facts, and I\'m very pleased the Department of the Interior is now keeping these facts in mind as they revise and update the rules for our national park system.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1668:\"In the coming weeks, the U.S. Department of the Interior will announce proposed changes to the rules that bar the carrying and transporting of firearms in national parks. This comes after nearly five years of efforts by NRA-ILA and others to get rid of the rules that prevent law-abiding Right-to-Carry holders and gun owners from having to disarm and store their firearms in an inaccessible part of their vehicle.

Some opponents of the change say that you don\'t need access to a firearm in a national park. But these people ignore the fact that park rangers are wearing protective vests and carry semi-automatic rifles for self-defense from predators of the two- and four-legged variety. Heck, back in 2003 the media quoted David Barma, the chief spokesman for the National Park System, as saying, "The most [visitors] used to worry about is running into a grizzly bear. Now there is the specter of violence by a masked alien toting an AK-47." 

But now the media ignores the recent up-tick in violent crime in our national parks. And they ignore the fact that many parts of the national park system are, by their very nature, remote and rugged wilderness areas, where help isn\'t just a phone call away. 

I\'m glad that Congress isn\'t ignoring these facts, and I\'m very pleased the Department of the Interior is now keeping these facts in mind as they revise and update the rules for our national park system.\";}i:19;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:32:\"Confusing Action and Achievement\";s:11:\"description\";s:1573:\"Canadian journalist Lorne Gunter is taking gun-banners to task for proposing a handgun ban in Canada. And he makes a great point about these gun-control schemes, saying, "Activity is confused with achievement."

How true that is. Just look at the "gun buybacks" that cities promote on a regular basis. Sure, there\'s activity. But what\'s the achievement? Every study done on these "buybacks" says they don\'t work to lower crime, nor do they do anything to make homes safer. Still, politicians love these made-for-media events. They guarantee that the politicians behind the "buybacks" will get face time on television and in the local newspaper. But that\'s the only thing "buybacks" achieve. 

It\'s easy to confuse action with achievement. But the goal of all Americans, on both sides of the gun-control issue, should be a reduction in violent crime while maintaining liberty and freedom for the law-abiding. And every gun-control proposal should be looked at through the dual lenses of liberty and common sense. But we should reject schemes that are action that achieves nothing, or worse, action that achieve more crime and less freedom.

So the next time you hear some goofy plan to restrict gun ownership, ask yourself what it would really achieve. I think you\'ll find that the answer is "not much to nothing at all."\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=374\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:32:\"Confusing Action and Achievement\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1573:\"Canadian journalist Lorne Gunter is taking gun-banners to task for proposing a handgun ban in Canada. And he makes a great point about these gun-control schemes, saying, "Activity is confused with achievement."

How true that is. Just look at the "gun buybacks" that cities promote on a regular basis. Sure, there\'s activity. But what\'s the achievement? Every study done on these "buybacks" says they don\'t work to lower crime, nor do they do anything to make homes safer. Still, politicians love these made-for-media events. They guarantee that the politicians behind the "buybacks" will get face time on television and in the local newspaper. But that\'s the only thing "buybacks" achieve. 

It\'s easy to confuse action with achievement. But the goal of all Americans, on both sides of the gun-control issue, should be a reduction in violent crime while maintaining liberty and freedom for the law-abiding. And every gun-control proposal should be looked at through the dual lenses of liberty and common sense. But we should reject schemes that are action that achieves nothing, or worse, action that achieve more crime and less freedom.

So the next time you hear some goofy plan to restrict gun ownership, ask yourself what it would really achieve. I think you\'ll find that the answer is "not much to nothing at all."\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1573:\"Canadian journalist Lorne Gunter is taking gun-banners to task for proposing a handgun ban in Canada. And he makes a great point about these gun-control schemes, saying, "Activity is confused with achievement."

How true that is. Just look at the "gun buybacks" that cities promote on a regular basis. Sure, there\'s activity. But what\'s the achievement? Every study done on these "buybacks" says they don\'t work to lower crime, nor do they do anything to make homes safer. Still, politicians love these made-for-media events. They guarantee that the politicians behind the "buybacks" will get face time on television and in the local newspaper. But that\'s the only thing "buybacks" achieve. 

It\'s easy to confuse action with achievement. But the goal of all Americans, on both sides of the gun-control issue, should be a reduction in violent crime while maintaining liberty and freedom for the law-abiding. And every gun-control proposal should be looked at through the dual lenses of liberty and common sense. But we should reject schemes that are action that achieves nothing, or worse, action that achieve more crime and less freedom.

So the next time you hear some goofy plan to restrict gun ownership, ask yourself what it would really achieve. I think you\'ll find that the answer is "not much to nothing at all."\";}i:20;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:29:\"Remembering Claude Willoughby\";s:11:\"description\";s:1440:\"I still can\'t believe Claude Willoughby is gone. The oldest NRA member passed away on Sunday, March 9, at the age of 102. Those of you who\'ve attended the NRA Annual Meetings in years past remember Claude. For years now, he\'s been honored as the oldest member in attendance. We didn\'t see him in St. Louis last year because his son was ill and couldn\'t take him, but we were all looking forward to seeing him in Louisville in May. 

Claude\'s devotion to the Second Amendment was legendary. I remember back in 2002 at the Annual Meetings when Claude took time to challenge us in that election year. 

"We did half a job last election, so we must do more next election," he said. I have a feeling I know what Claude would tell us this year. He\'d tell us that as gun owners, we must do more this time around as well. We have to get involved. We have to make calls. We have to support pro-gun candidates and we have to speak out against the anti-gunners running for office. We can\'t rest. We can\'t do half the job. 

I\'m going to miss Claude Willoughby, and the prayers of NRA staff and members go out to the Willoughby family. But hopefully they can take comfort in the fact that he\'ll continue to be an inspiration to me and thousands of other NRA members who take his words to heart.

"We must do more." 

We won\'t let you down, Claude.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=373\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:29:\"Remembering Claude Willoughby\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1440:\"I still can\'t believe Claude Willoughby is gone. The oldest NRA member passed away on Sunday, March 9, at the age of 102. Those of you who\'ve attended the NRA Annual Meetings in years past remember Claude. For years now, he\'s been honored as the oldest member in attendance. We didn\'t see him in St. Louis last year because his son was ill and couldn\'t take him, but we were all looking forward to seeing him in Louisville in May. 

Claude\'s devotion to the Second Amendment was legendary. I remember back in 2002 at the Annual Meetings when Claude took time to challenge us in that election year. 

"We did half a job last election, so we must do more next election," he said. I have a feeling I know what Claude would tell us this year. He\'d tell us that as gun owners, we must do more this time around as well. We have to get involved. We have to make calls. We have to support pro-gun candidates and we have to speak out against the anti-gunners running for office. We can\'t rest. We can\'t do half the job. 

I\'m going to miss Claude Willoughby, and the prayers of NRA staff and members go out to the Willoughby family. But hopefully they can take comfort in the fact that he\'ll continue to be an inspiration to me and thousands of other NRA members who take his words to heart.

"We must do more." 

We won\'t let you down, Claude.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1440:\"I still can\'t believe Claude Willoughby is gone. The oldest NRA member passed away on Sunday, March 9, at the age of 102. Those of you who\'ve attended the NRA Annual Meetings in years past remember Claude. For years now, he\'s been honored as the oldest member in attendance. We didn\'t see him in St. Louis last year because his son was ill and couldn\'t take him, but we were all looking forward to seeing him in Louisville in May. 

Claude\'s devotion to the Second Amendment was legendary. I remember back in 2002 at the Annual Meetings when Claude took time to challenge us in that election year. 

"We did half a job last election, so we must do more next election," he said. I have a feeling I know what Claude would tell us this year. He\'d tell us that as gun owners, we must do more this time around as well. We have to get involved. We have to make calls. We have to support pro-gun candidates and we have to speak out against the anti-gunners running for office. We can\'t rest. We can\'t do half the job. 

I\'m going to miss Claude Willoughby, and the prayers of NRA staff and members go out to the Willoughby family. But hopefully they can take comfort in the fact that he\'ll continue to be an inspiration to me and thousands of other NRA members who take his words to heart.

"We must do more." 

We won\'t let you down, Claude.\";}i:21;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:15:\"Arguing the Ban\";s:11:\"description\";s:1859:\"I was at the Supreme Court today, and based on what I heard, I have every expectation that the Court will soon restore the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia.

Everything I saw in court shows the District\'s ban on functional firearms is out of sync with American history. The arguments today clearly indicated the Second Amendment is an individual, and not a collective, right. The District\'s attorneys spent their time swimming upstream against the U.S. Constitution. 

In Washington, D.C., the law is simple. Once a gun becomes usable, it becomes illegal. That means when your window breaks at 2 a.m. and you\'re facing an armed criminal heading towards your bedroom, the politicians in D.C. want you to just call 911 and pray help arrives before it\'s too late. 
 
That\'s why the District\'s law isn\'t just unconstitutional, it\'s unreasonable. The D.C. Gun Ban has been on the books for decades and hasn\'t increased public safety. In fact, the crime rate has skyrocketed. When you couple the gun ban with the District\'s revolving-door criminal justice system, it\'s open season on honest people. 

The District seeks the supremacy of the government. The NRA believes that individual freedom is of the utmost importance in our country. The idea that the government can protect you from all harm is a fantasy. Even the beat cops, the law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day, will tell you that. 

This case is ultimately about the good people in society, and what rights they have to protect themselves against those who ignore our laws. It\'s about whether the good people will have their God-given right of self defense returned to them. And after what we\'ve seen today, I\'m confident the Second Amendment will soon return to the District. \";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=372\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:15:\"Arguing the Ban\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1859:\"I was at the Supreme Court today, and based on what I heard, I have every expectation that the Court will soon restore the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia.

Everything I saw in court shows the District\'s ban on functional firearms is out of sync with American history. The arguments today clearly indicated the Second Amendment is an individual, and not a collective, right. The District\'s attorneys spent their time swimming upstream against the U.S. Constitution. 

In Washington, D.C., the law is simple. Once a gun becomes usable, it becomes illegal. That means when your window breaks at 2 a.m. and you\'re facing an armed criminal heading towards your bedroom, the politicians in D.C. want you to just call 911 and pray help arrives before it\'s too late. 
 
That\'s why the District\'s law isn\'t just unconstitutional, it\'s unreasonable. The D.C. Gun Ban has been on the books for decades and hasn\'t increased public safety. In fact, the crime rate has skyrocketed. When you couple the gun ban with the District\'s revolving-door criminal justice system, it\'s open season on honest people. 

The District seeks the supremacy of the government. The NRA believes that individual freedom is of the utmost importance in our country. The idea that the government can protect you from all harm is a fantasy. Even the beat cops, the law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day, will tell you that. 

This case is ultimately about the good people in society, and what rights they have to protect themselves against those who ignore our laws. It\'s about whether the good people will have their God-given right of self defense returned to them. And after what we\'ve seen today, I\'m confident the Second Amendment will soon return to the District. \";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1859:\"I was at the Supreme Court today, and based on what I heard, I have every expectation that the Court will soon restore the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia.

Everything I saw in court shows the District\'s ban on functional firearms is out of sync with American history. The arguments today clearly indicated the Second Amendment is an individual, and not a collective, right. The District\'s attorneys spent their time swimming upstream against the U.S. Constitution. 

In Washington, D.C., the law is simple. Once a gun becomes usable, it becomes illegal. That means when your window breaks at 2 a.m. and you\'re facing an armed criminal heading towards your bedroom, the politicians in D.C. want you to just call 911 and pray help arrives before it\'s too late. 
 
That\'s why the District\'s law isn\'t just unconstitutional, it\'s unreasonable. The D.C. Gun Ban has been on the books for decades and hasn\'t increased public safety. In fact, the crime rate has skyrocketed. When you couple the gun ban with the District\'s revolving-door criminal justice system, it\'s open season on honest people. 

The District seeks the supremacy of the government. The NRA believes that individual freedom is of the utmost importance in our country. The idea that the government can protect you from all harm is a fantasy. Even the beat cops, the law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day, will tell you that. 

This case is ultimately about the good people in society, and what rights they have to protect themselves against those who ignore our laws. It\'s about whether the good people will have their God-given right of self defense returned to them. And after what we\'ve seen today, I\'m confident the Second Amendment will soon return to the District. \";}i:22;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:18:\"The Reign of Kaine\";s:11:\"description\";s:1831:\"The veto of two self-defense bills by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has infuriated many gun owners in the state. Kaine campaigned as a guy who wouldn\'t sign gun-control legislation, and would respect the rights of gun owners. But the veto of these two bills shows us that Kaine\'s support for gun owners seems to only come out when it\'s politically expedient. 

Take, for example, Kaine\'s displeasure with the fact that Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell signed on to the amicus brief that 30 other state Attorneys General supported in opposition to D.C.\'s gun ban. Kaine isn\'t willing to say that D.C.\'s ban on firearms in the home is unconstitutional, because (in the words of his spokesman) he\'s not the "governor of D.C." 

That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I\'ve heard lately.  A lots of folks have given their opinion on the D.C. gun case, and most of them don\'t live in the District of Columbia. With an issue that could affect every American, it\'s no surprise there\'s interest from around the country. But when a politician tries to straddle the fence between his pro-gun constituency and party leaders who are anti-gun, it\'s no surprise to hear the ridiculous stated with a straight face. 

Tim Kaine doesn\'t support allowing restaurant owners to decide for themselves if they want to allow Right-to-Carry. He doesn\'t support common-sense measures like allowing legal gun owners to lock their firearms away in their car, rather than having to display them in the open. And he\'s not telling us whether he thinks it\'s okay for the government to ban firearms in the home. 

I don\'t know about Kaine\'s aspirations for higher office, but I do know gun owners won\'t forget these positions the next time they have a chance to vote.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=371\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:18:\"The Reign of Kaine\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1831:\"The veto of two self-defense bills by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has infuriated many gun owners in the state. Kaine campaigned as a guy who wouldn\'t sign gun-control legislation, and would respect the rights of gun owners. But the veto of these two bills shows us that Kaine\'s support for gun owners seems to only come out when it\'s politically expedient. 

Take, for example, Kaine\'s displeasure with the fact that Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell signed on to the amicus brief that 30 other state Attorneys General supported in opposition to D.C.\'s gun ban. Kaine isn\'t willing to say that D.C.\'s ban on firearms in the home is unconstitutional, because (in the words of his spokesman) he\'s not the "governor of D.C." 

That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I\'ve heard lately.  A lots of folks have given their opinion on the D.C. gun case, and most of them don\'t live in the District of Columbia. With an issue that could affect every American, it\'s no surprise there\'s interest from around the country. But when a politician tries to straddle the fence between his pro-gun constituency and party leaders who are anti-gun, it\'s no surprise to hear the ridiculous stated with a straight face. 

Tim Kaine doesn\'t support allowing restaurant owners to decide for themselves if they want to allow Right-to-Carry. He doesn\'t support common-sense measures like allowing legal gun owners to lock their firearms away in their car, rather than having to display them in the open. And he\'s not telling us whether he thinks it\'s okay for the government to ban firearms in the home. 

I don\'t know about Kaine\'s aspirations for higher office, but I do know gun owners won\'t forget these positions the next time they have a chance to vote.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1831:\"The veto of two self-defense bills by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has infuriated many gun owners in the state. Kaine campaigned as a guy who wouldn\'t sign gun-control legislation, and would respect the rights of gun owners. But the veto of these two bills shows us that Kaine\'s support for gun owners seems to only come out when it\'s politically expedient. 

Take, for example, Kaine\'s displeasure with the fact that Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell signed on to the amicus brief that 30 other state Attorneys General supported in opposition to D.C.\'s gun ban. Kaine isn\'t willing to say that D.C.\'s ban on firearms in the home is unconstitutional, because (in the words of his spokesman) he\'s not the "governor of D.C." 

That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I\'ve heard lately.  A lots of folks have given their opinion on the D.C. gun case, and most of them don\'t live in the District of Columbia. With an issue that could affect every American, it\'s no surprise there\'s interest from around the country. But when a politician tries to straddle the fence between his pro-gun constituency and party leaders who are anti-gun, it\'s no surprise to hear the ridiculous stated with a straight face. 

Tim Kaine doesn\'t support allowing restaurant owners to decide for themselves if they want to allow Right-to-Carry. He doesn\'t support common-sense measures like allowing legal gun owners to lock their firearms away in their car, rather than having to display them in the open. And he\'s not telling us whether he thinks it\'s okay for the government to ban firearms in the home. 

I don\'t know about Kaine\'s aspirations for higher office, but I do know gun owners won\'t forget these positions the next time they have a chance to vote.\";}i:23;a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:29:\"The Failure of Fingerprinting\";s:11:\"description\";s:1865:\"Yet another new study shows that ballistic fingerprinting doesn\'t work the way the gun-banners claimed it would. Doubts about the validity of the science, combined with problems in real-world implementation, mean that for the foreseeable future, we probably won\'t be hearing the anti-gunners clamoring for this new piece of gun control. 

Instead, expect to hear a lot of talk about "microstamping." The authors of the study on ballistic fingerprinting mentioned microstamping as an alternative. But they never got into the real-world problems with that technology, either.

From the additional cost to the easily defeated stamp itself, microstamping is another illusion of "gun safety." The problems with microstamping are numerous and not easily corrected, but that won\'t stop gun-controllers from trying to pass microstamping laws around the country. 

The other day I saw a story from Massachusetts. It seems criminals are increasingly having surgery to try and remove their fingerprints. If they\'re going through this much trouble, do you really think they\'re going to legally purchase a firearm that could be tied back to them? Give me a break. They\'ll continue to acquire their firearms illegally. Meanwhile, an honest gun owner who tries to replace a firing pin on his handgun may inadvertently become a criminal by removing the microstamped part. 

We\'re all for helping law enforcement. But that means real help, not pie-in-the-sky proposals that will only drain law-enforcement dollars instead of truly helping the cops on the street.\";s:4:\"link\";s:54:\"http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=370\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:29:\"Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:00:00 GMT\";s:6:\"itunes\";a:3:{s:6:\"author\";s:7:\"NRANews\";s:8:\"subtitle\";s:29:\"The Failure of Fingerprinting\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1865:\"Yet another new study shows that ballistic fingerprinting doesn\'t work the way the gun-banners claimed it would. Doubts about the validity of the science, combined with problems in real-world implementation, mean that for the foreseeable future, we probably won\'t be hearing the anti-gunners clamoring for this new piece of gun control. 

Instead, expect to hear a lot of talk about "microstamping." The authors of the study on ballistic fingerprinting mentioned microstamping as an alternative. But they never got into the real-world problems with that technology, either.

From the additional cost to the easily defeated stamp itself, microstamping is another illusion of "gun safety." The problems with microstamping are numerous and not easily corrected, but that won\'t stop gun-controllers from trying to pass microstamping laws around the country. 

The other day I saw a story from Massachusetts. It seems criminals are increasingly having surgery to try and remove their fingerprints. If they\'re going through this much trouble, do you really think they\'re going to legally purchase a firearm that could be tied back to them? Give me a break. They\'ll continue to acquire their firearms illegally. Meanwhile, an honest gun owner who tries to replace a firing pin on his handgun may inadvertently become a criminal by removing the microstamped part. 

We\'re all for helping law enforcement. But that means real help, not pie-in-the-sky proposals that will only drain law-enforcement dollars instead of truly helping the cops on the street.\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:1865:\"Yet another new study shows that ballistic fingerprinting doesn\'t work the way the gun-banners claimed it would. Doubts about the validity of the science, combined with problems in real-world implementation, mean that for the foreseeable future, we probably won\'t be hearing the anti-gunners clamoring for this new piece of gun control. 

Instead, expect to hear a lot of talk about "microstamping." The authors of the study on ballistic fingerprinting mentioned microstamping as an alternative. But they never got into the real-world problems with that technology, either.

From the additional cost to the easily defeated stamp itself, microstamping is another illusion of "gun safety." The problems with microstamping are numerous and not easily corrected, but that won\'t stop gun-controllers from trying to pass microstamping laws around the country. 

The other day I saw a story from Massachusetts. It seems criminals are increasingly having surgery to try and remove their fingerprints. If they\'re going through this much