Thursday, December 20, 2012

2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants 
By KrisAnnHall / Liberty First

King Barry the Waster, has his “gun ban list.”    As evidenced in  HR 1022 which was proposed in 2007, the Liberals are bent on disarming US citizens.  What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this!  Here is a little 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants. 

Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788.  Lesson one comes from George Mason.  George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”  Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.”  Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers! 

“Forty years ago, when the resolution ofenslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788 

In the words of the “Father,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government.  But Mr. Mason doesn’t end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and the answer will surely be a surprise to King Barry and his jester, Eric Holder. 

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has askedwho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation?  I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788 

So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations!

Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster.  Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.
“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”  Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
Even the dummies out there should be able to follow that.  Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?
1.     To prevent rule by a standing army;
2.     To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;
3.     To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;
4.     The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.
Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence).  This interesting explanation is guaranteed to make every liberal and even a “conservative” or two slip into a fit of convulsions.  Mr. Lee explains,
“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”  Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.
Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm.  How about that directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?  I smell the smoke roiling out of the liberals’ ears.
Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry.  Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s duty to bear arms.  No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788
“Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788
Well, there you have it, 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.  Yet, perhaps King Barry and his court jesters DO UNDERSTAND the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  Perhaps that is why he is so intent on disarming the people, because he knows, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny. 
Just remember, the Federal government has no legitimate power beyond what its masters delegate to it.  The States are the final battleground against centralized tyranny.   We will defend our States, until we regain our nation. 
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

Now more than ever, we must fight for freedom

From: Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

 

One thing we have learned, or should have learned, in 2012 was that the old approaches haven’t worked.

The organizations and think tanks that talk endlessly about the problem have failed. Enemies of freedom and enablers of Islamic supremacism are in the mainstream of the media, the government, the educational system, and the entertainment industry. Only one hope remains for free people: going over all their heads for a direct appeal to the people, and by doing so, forcing a public discussion of the issues that matter most in these dark days. And there is only one organization that is doing that, and forcing public discussion of the gravest threats to our freedom: our American Freedom Defense Initiative. 

Once again, in 2012 our organization has done groundbreaking work with unprecedented results. There is no group that can match our effective guerrilla style media and legal warfare. And we had come off a very successful year in 2011 in defeating the Ground Zero mosque.

Here is just some of what we accomplished in 2012:

-- Our anti-jihad subway and bus campaigns have forced and are continuing to force a deeply compromised and willfully ignorant media to talk about what they otherwise refuse to discuss: jihad and sharia. We broke out of the ghetto that the media elites have reserved for voices that defend freedom, and made it impossible for them to avoid holding a public discussion and analysis of the most serious threat to our national security.

-- We are exploding the deceptions of Hamas-linked CAIR's cynical #MyJihad campaign with our own ad campaign depicting the actual words about Islam and jihad of actual jihadists.

-- We expanded the "Support Israel, Defeat Jihad" bus campaign to 100 NYC buses to include "Support the Troops, Defeat Jihad"; "Support the Copts, Defeat Jihad"; "Support the Bahais, Defeat Jihad"; "Support the Nigerian Christians, Defeat Jihad"; "Support the Hindus, Defeat Jihad"; et al.

-- We countered Hamas-linked CAIR's deceptive Qur'an ads that are designed to lull Americans into complacency about the jihad threat.

-- We won historic, landmark free speech cases in New York and Washington against politically correct transit officials who refused to run our pro-Israel ads after accepting vicious anti-Israel ads. These cases are crucial in these days of ever-increasing encroachment upon our freedom of speech, our fundamental bulwark against tyranny. See the stories in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Reuters.

-- Our anti-jihad conferences and freedom rallies in Stockholm; our bringing the truth to conservatives at CPAC 2012: Islamic Law in America; the Honor Killing Human Rights Conference in Dearborn; our Former Muslims for Freedom conference in Manhattan Beach; and our First International Freedom Congress at the UN on 9/11 raised awareness of these crucial issues across the world. No one had ever focused so much attention to the plight of Muslim apostates and honor killing victims; the exposure of Sharia’s human rights abuses put the Islamic supremacists in the U.S. on the defensive for the first time ever.

-- We exposed pro-sharia media bias when we submitted an exact replica of an anti-Catholic ad that ran in the New York Times, exchanging the falsehoods about Catholicism with truth about Islam. The New York Times refused our ad, but ran the anti-Catholic ad. It made television and mainstream media news round the world, shedding light on media duplicity and hypocrisy.

We never retreat. We refuse to accept a dark future. We fight. We will continue on the offense, but we can't do it without funds.

No one is pushing back and getting the results that AFDI and SIOA has gotten. No one. But we can’t do it alone. We have no big foundations funding us, no big endowment. We can’t do it on fumes.

Every dollar you contribute to AFDI/SIOA goes to the fight. We don’t draw salaries. We don’t have expensive offices or a huge staff (in fact, we don’t have an office or a staff at all).

Please make an effective fight for freedom top priority in your end-of-the-year donations. Donate now to the most effective freedom fighters in the war of ideas today: Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of AFDI.

We know how to stop school shootings

Ann Coulter decries 'self-indulgent grandstanding' by gun-grabbers


 
In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple-victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” – even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
  • Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
  • Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed-carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
  • Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
  • Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates – as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
  • Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
  • Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One. By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures – Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
    All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed – and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
    If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

It’s Always ‘Too Soon’

It’s Always ‘Too Soon’by / Personal Liberty Digest



Ultimately, it doesn’t matter when the “right” time to delve into so-called “gun control” has arrived. Once the smoke clears, we all step back into the rhetorical ring for another round of debate about what liberals call “gun violence” and conservatives call either “crime” or the lyrics to a rap album.

Of course, the actual debate takes a moment to get under way. First, the media have to descend on the bereaved and gorge themselves on misery like buzzards feasting on roadkill. In the Newtown, Conn., nightmare, ABC News editorial producer Nadine Shubailat began stalking victims’ families and friends on Twitter, begging for face time, until outraged respondents buried her Twitter feed in an avalanche of spam. Meanwhile, the Democrats had to take a moment to adhere to Rahm Emanuel’s famous adage: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Barack Obama’s creepy little pet, David Axelrod, even tried hyping Obama’s gun-control speech (which was ostensibly supposed to comfort the Nation) to direct people to donate to Obama’s 2012 Presidential campaign. Nothing says “we care” like exploiting dead children to grub for cash for an electoral effort that ended six weeks ago.

Among the citizenry, emotions run high, often obfuscating reason. Some proffer laughable conspiracy theories, my favorite involving both the Aurora theater shooter and the Newtown murderer being stooges for a secret gun-lobby conspiracy trying to create an artificial spike in prices. Others try to resurrect the ridiculous talking point about the 2nd Amendment referring only to flintlock muskets and blunderbusses. They blissfully ignore that abortion is now Constitutionally protected.

And we must not forget magazine capacity. Anti-2nd Amendment zealots suggest that no one needs high-capacity magazines. But Connecticut already bars the sale thereof. In fact, Connecticut is a liberal’s paradise regarding gun laws. Capacity makes no real difference. A determined shooter with even moderate training can cycle through 10- or even 5-round magazines in rapid succession.

When the shooter is spurred on by the voices in his head and the victims are 5- and 6-year-olds, he doesn’t even have to be all that proficient. Hell, terrorist Timothy McVeigh was highly proficient with firearms — as an Army veteran, he was probably better with an M4 than Adam Lanza ever hoped to be — and he didn’t need a firearm at all. In China, some hopped-up lunatic went after a couple dozen schoolchildren with a knife about 18 hours before Lanza proceeded with his grisly plan. The Chinese, who have gun control to quail the hearts of even the Brady Campaign, have seen a number of such attacks in just the past few years.

Still others took advantage of the situation to press an assault against the National Rifle Association. Twitter was set ablaze by concerned liberals issuing death threats to not only the group’s members, but their children as well.



Liberals are so opposed to violence that they’re positively homicidal over it.

Gun control is really people control. And people can be controlled a lot more simply than an ill-advised frontal assault on the Bill of Rights. When I first offered my curriculum vitae to Bob Livingston, I remarked that gun control requires nothing more than common sense: You don’t allow criminals, illegal aliens or the guy down the street with a tinfoil hat access to firearms. Imposing draconian measures on the only part of the populace likely to abide by them merely tilts the field in favor of the criminal element. For those who remain unconvinced, take a look at Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. (I suggest you do so from inside a tank.)

So-called “assault rifles,” high-capacity magazines, the NRA and one or two really intricate conspiracy theories might qualify as meaningful debate among liberal audiences who are as receptive to dissent as a Third World dictator, but they aren’t really the topics we ought to be discussing in the wake of Sandy Hook or any significant tragedy. From Newtown to Oklahoma City to China, the problem is on full display; and that problem isn’t guns.

Gun-grabbers claim they want to have a meaningful discussion about societal violence. I’m fine with that. Let me know when they’re ready to start.

New impeachment threat, with Democrat 'involved'

Bi-partisan demand to be consulted on Obama plans

by Taylor Rose / WND


WASHINGTON – U.S. Reps. Walter Jones, R-N.C., and Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., along with retired senior defense intelligence officer Col. Walter P. Lang and the Veterans for Peace today said Congress must be consulted before Barack Obama would send American troops into Syria.

Or else.

At a press conference, Jones discussed his resolution to oppose American involvement in Syria without first consulting Congress.

His resolution, H.Con. Res. 107, expresses “the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

Jones was responding to the growing potential for direct American involvement in Syria to support the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad.

Just as he was one of the few Republicans opposed to the war in Iraq, Jones again expressed his opposition to a war that would be conducted without the approval of Congress.

It is Congress, after all, that the Constitution entrusts to make a decision regarding war, he said.

His resolution comes at a time when America’s military presence in the region is rising. Just this week, U.S.-supplied Patriot missiles arrived in Turkey to protect it from the Syrian conflict that is spilling across borders.

Jones made specific reference to how Obama took the U.S. to war in Libya and never consulted Congress. He said he does not want to see that policy repeated.

Rangel said the procedure should be for the president to come to Congress, which “means come to the American people.”

“That is not asking too much,” he said.

Regarding to the situation in Syria, Lang, the former deputy director for military attach├ęs and operations, said there is “a great deal of exaggeration going on” in the media’s coverage and portrayal of the events.

“The outcome is not at all certain,” he said, putting emphasis on the fact that Assad is “not close to defeat.”

He also noted that “regime change has been the policy of this government from the start” and said the U.S. recognizes the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the legitimate government of Syria, but “there is nothing in international” law that declares the Syrian Opposition Coalition to be the legitimate government of Syria.

When asked by WND how U.S. relations with Russia, the main supporter of the Assad regime, would be affected by U.S. intervention, both Jones and Rangel admitted that they had no idea.

That’s why, they say, the U.S. should not intervene.

Lang added that by militarily intervening in Syria, the U.S. could create a “World War I-like scenario” in which the conflict rapidly expands from nation to nation in the region, until finally the world’s great powers are in armed conflict with one another.

Jeffery Steinberg of the Executive Intelligence Review added that the possibility of a U.S.-Russian clash over Syria is “very much on the minds of the Russian political and military elite.”

He added, “Syria is a slippery slope.”

Rangel said: “I am just as patriotic as the next guy … but when somebody says our national security is threatened, then it is time to call up our troops in a draft. That is how I look at it. And if you cannot find it in your heart to step forward and make some sacrifice then we should not be involved.”

Asked what should be done if Obama follows through with military intervention in Syria, Jones said charges of impeachment must be brought.

Others expressing support for Jones’ ideas were Reps. Justin Amash, R-Mich.; Mo Brooks R-Ala.; Michael Michaud, D-Maine; and Ron Paul, R-Texas.

Their letter states: “Outside of an actual or imminent attack on America, the only precursor to war can be the authorization of Congress. We call on you to abide by our Constitution, and rely on our country’s representatives to decide when war is necessary.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/new-impeachment-threat-with-democrat-involved/#3Apii2o4Kqz6tjVt.99
Op-ed:
Obama's true gun control plan...repeal the Second Amendment
By: Diane Sori

With Democrats in Congress stepping up their blatant in-your-face push for gun control using Friday's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary as their political fodder, yesterday Barack HUSSEIN Obama announced that VP Joe Biden will head his administration's efforts looking into the matter of gun control. Using this tragedy by invoking the names of the dead children as his rallying point every chance he gets, Obama has now brought the issue of gun control back to the forefront...as in never let a good tragedy go to waste.

Obama's proposed government-wide task force, which will include Cabinet officials, would be required to submit a 'comprehensive plan' to him no later than the end of January. However, what Obama forgets is that Uncle Joe 'Bite Me'...the fool of fools...Mr. Foot-in-Mouth himself...heading a task force such as this will probably have him shooting himself in the foot! (pun intended)

And to that I say, 'Heaven help us all' and even putting Uncle Joe Bite-Me aside, you know as well as I do that this is NOT about gun control but is about repealing our Constitutionally given right to bear arms.

In fact, to accomplish this goal Obama is pushing NOT only for the reinstatement of the past assault weapons ban, but also to expand that to include other firearms as well, all part of his plan NOT to just address what he calls 'gun violence' but to call into play his hoped for repeal of the Second Amendment. And add into the mix that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) plans to introduce legislation early next year calling for the reinstatement of that the assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004, and you know it has begun. 
 
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) expressed very well the skepticism that many Republicans and Constitution abiding Americans feel about how a ban on assault weapons really would NOT prevent another mass shooting.
 
"I think we need to be informed and learn about this specific incident to see what policy changes could have prevented it," Rubio said. "But to be quite frank I've always been skeptical of the ability of gun laws and gun laws alone to prevent violent things like this from happening." 

And that's because Rubio knows that guns don't kill people...people kill people.

Bottom line...if it was up to Obama and his cronies 'We the People' would be totally disarmed and the only ones who would have firearms would be his own little private army of hoodlums and thugs. 
 
Trying to mask his true intentions by saying he wants his 'comprehensive plan' to address educational and mental health issues associated with gun violence including mental health funding, along with the impact violent video games have on young people (remember, all his liberal buddies say video games contributed to the Connecticut tragedy), we know this is just subterfuge to keep 'We the People' occupied while he chips away at our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Thankfully, both Obama and his gun control cronies face major obstacles in trying to attain their intended goal, primarily from the National Rifle Association (NRA)...who in reality are our last line of defense against Obama's trying to repeal the Second Amendment. The NRA is feared in DC and rightly so, because along with their huge membership (and I am proudly one of those members) the NRA can turn out the vote and can garner major campaign contributions either to support an elected official or oppose an elected official, and lets face it the bottom line will always remain...money talks. 
 
And thanks to the NRA money talks for those on the side of the way our Founders intended the Constitution to be...complete with its Second Amendment firmly in place for all time.  And while Obama and the liberal Democrats shun the Constitution every chance they get, hopefully on this issue the Republicans will stand strong and say, 'NO way.'