It Could Never Happen To Me?
By Rod Kuratomi
I have heard it over and over again from liberal friends of mine:
“I have a better chance of getting killed in a car accident, why do I need a gun?”
“The chances of me ever becoming a victim of gun violence is so slim, I have a better chance of getting struck by lightning”
Well, when you drive a car, most people wear a seat belt. Likewise, most people don’t play golf in a thunderstorm swinging a lightning rod in their hands. Having a gun for personal protection is a form of insurance. You hope you never need to use it but it is better to have and not need then to need and not have.
I don’t leave the fate of my well being and those of my loved ones to chance and probability. You talk to anyone that is anti-gun and most have never been a victim of violent crime. If they are lucky enough to survive a violent encounter their eyes open and the reality sets in.
Below is a news clip I read today. It is about a triple murder spree that happened in two very nice neighborhoods. I am sure the outcome would have been different if the victims were armed and trained. I am also sure they thought it would never happen to them. Were they unlucky? No, they were unprepared and living in a fantasy world that “It could never happen to me”……
The Landmark Heller Case
By Rod Kuratomi - May 21, 2009
This was the Landmark 2008 Supreme Court case where a security guard was prohibited from having his handgun that he used for work in Washington DC when he was not on duty. The gun controllers have long stated that the 2nd amendment only applied to “a well regulated militia” and that this militia was the National Guard. This was known as a “collective” right vs. an “individual” right. This viewpoint was absolutely flawed since the National Guard was not even formed until 100 years after the Bill of Rights was drafted. In addition, the “militia” is every able bodied male, not just a soldier in the National Guard.
The Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact an “individual” right, not a collective right. In addition, they stated that it was legal in all 50 states to carry a handgun exposed. Open carry is outlawed in many states nationwide and will be tested in court in the not too distant future to nullify existing state laws that prohibit open carry.
The Supreme Court conveniently avoided any 2nd amendment cases and this was the first major case to be heard by them since the 1939 Miller case. The Heller case will be the basis of a landslide of lawsuits that will seek to nullify state and local laws that exist in opposition to the 2nd amendment.
The Truth About “Assault Rifles”
By Rod Kuratomi - May 21, 2009
Back in 1994 President Clinton signed into law a ten year ban on rifles which were singled out because they looked “evil”. The criteria that they were selected for were more cosmetic than function issues.
The ban targeted a list of rifles by make and model which were often times based on the M16 (M4) platform, the AK-47 platform, or any other semi-automatic rifle which had a detachable magazine and two or more of the following criteria:
It also banned some pistols and shotguns with features deemed dangerous but were also primarily cosmetic in nature.
What resulted were many gun makers removing some of these cosmetic features that in now way changed their functionality to any great extent but it did make them comply with the law. Most common was the removal of the bayonet lug and flash hider. When was the last time a serial killer or active shooter went on a rampage with a bayonet mounted on a rifle? Like this made any difference at all. Since when did removing the flash hider make a rifle any less dangerous? This is what happens when politicians and people that know nothing about guns or tactics are allowed to make laws. Laws like these are strictly forbidden by the 2nd amendment of the Constitution.
The ban also eliminated the sale or transfer of any magazine for either rifle or pistol that held more than ten rounds.
The ban was passed with the provision that it would “sunset” or expire after ten years and then it would be evaluated if it should be reinstated. Statistics after the ten year ban showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on crime. The ban to this day has not been reinstated though the Obama administration and attorney general Eric Holder would like it to be reinstated and modified with yet more restrictions. These rifles were used in such a small percentage of crime but the lawmakers thought that they could easily pass a ban and then demonstrate to their constituents that they were doing something about crime when in fact the ban did nothing. They knew they would have little chance of trying to ban the gun that was used in the majority of crimes which was the handgun. Unfortunately, in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, they passed their own more restrictive version of the law which had no expiration date and is still in effect today.
The absolutely ludicrous thing is that these rifles were misrepresented by the supporters of the ban and the media as machine guns, or fully automatic rifles. The difference being that semi automatic rifles shoot one bullet for each time the trigger is pulled vs. a fully automatic rifle that will fire multiple bullets so long as the trigger is held down. Fully automatic rifles are what the military uses. What is “allowed” by the government for the average citizen to have is only the semi-automatic version which look like the full automatic versions but require a single trigger press to fire a single bullet.
The absolute stupidity of the legislature is that rifles like the Ruger Mini 14, and the Springfield M1A were allowed to be sold because they did not look “evil”. These rifles had no pistol grip. The Mini 14 shoots the exact same bullet as the Colt AR-15 which was banned. It also has a detachable box magazine and can also be fired at the same rate of fire. The Springfield M1A shoots the larger .308 caliber and also was not banned because it did not have a pistol grip and did not look as “evil” as the AR or AK-47 variants. Both the Ruger and Springfield in their standard models had wooden stocks and did not look like the “evil” black rifles of the AR class. The only thing that needed to be done was to remove the flash hider on the M1A so it could be compliant. The Mini 14 never had one and was totally unaffected.
The other idiotic part of this ban was the limit for pistols and rifles to hold only ten rounds. This was basically saying, if you were going to use this gun and magazine for unlawful purposes, it is OK to kill ten people but to kill eleven people would be bad. The law would require the shooter to reload after 10 shots which takes all of less than two seconds. Another useless law created by a lawmaker that knows nothing about guns and crime.
The other farce is that gun banners want these guns banned because they have no “sporting purpose”. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting ducks. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure the citizen had the same small arms as those issued to the military. This was so that a citizen can fight back against the government if the government was every out of control. It was the final check and balance of our nation. The banning of machine gun possession is a violation of the original intent of the founding fathers. Those powers specifically not given to the federal government are reserved for the states, yet the US banned the unrestricted ownership of fully automatic weapons in the 1930’s as a result of the fight against organized crime. They had no power to do this but they did so anyways under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” which was reinforced by the Supreme Court case in 1939 of Miller vs. US. This was a case where a sawed off shotgun was transported across state lines and it was deemed not protected by the 2nd amendment since it was not an arm normally used by the military. Miller died before the case went to the Supreme Court and there were no attorneys in Miller’s defense. The Supreme Court agreed with all points brought up by the prosecution since there was no counter argument in Miller’s favor. This commerce clause has been the basis for most laws passed by the federal government that they had no power to pass in the first place. Since when did selling an item from state to state give the federal government a wide range of powers? This does not follow the original intent of our founding fathers.
The truth of the matter is the “assault rifle” is not an assault rifle. A true assault rifle is a fully automatic machine gun. Rather the guns we currently have are “counter assault” rifles to be used against a tyrannical government and enemies foreign and domestic. It has no “sporting purpose”. It was designed for killing evil men. Those that don’t want you to have this “counter assault” rifle are evil. They know that they cannot pursue their Socialist agendas unless you, the citizen are disarmed. Once this is done, then the citizen is no longer a threat and can now be a “loyal subject” at the mercy of the government. God save King Obama…..
The Mexican Deception
By Rod Kuratomi - May 20th, 2009
The latest ploy currently being used by our government to try to disarm us is to impose new gun laws on Americans based on the precept that it will reduce gun crime in Mexico. The numerous killings as a result of the ongoing drug war in Mexico is the focal point of this issue.
This is based on the misleading statistic that 90% of the guns seized in Mexico can be traced back to the United States. The guns that were seized also included fully automatic M-16s, fully automatic AK-47s, grenade launchers, and hand grenades.
Since when have these type of arms been bought in American gun stores? Never.
The real truth is that only a small percentage of the guns seized originated from the USA. Mexico only sent the brands of guns they knew were made in the USA (like Colt) and 90% of the guns that were SUBMITTED to the US for tracing came up as being from the US. The actual percentage of all guns seized that can be shown came from the US is 17%. The rest of the guns likely were guns like AK-47s that came from Mexico’s southern border. Only the guns known to be made in the USA were sent for ID.
Now where did these guns come from?
According to Fox News:
-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.
"These Don't Come From El Paso"
Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.
"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."
Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."
Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.
The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.
"Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
(end of Fox news info)
It is despicable that those like Diane Feinstein can spout out these statistics that are skewed to further their own personal agenda.
Ask to know what some of the USA serial numbers for these weapons are? Request denied. If numbers were released, it would show that these weapons were actually authorized to be sold by our own government.
Since when is the appearance of guns in another country grounds to restrict our inalienable rights to keep and bear arms in the United States of America?
If Mexico is worried about guns going into Mexico and they are being smuggled across the border, it should be up to them to control the border of things going south. We control the border for things coming north but anyone can go south with being stopped or questioned. Guns are already illegal in Mexico. Since when are more gun laws in the USA going to change anything in Mexico? It won’t. Frankly, even if they check for things going south, they probably won’t find anything. The number of straw purchases (guns bought legally in the USA and then illegally given to another) of guns sent to Mexico is very small and they do not comprise any of the fully automatic weapons that are being seized.
The guns that are traced back to the USA are likely from Mexican soldiers that defected over to the drug cartels. The number of soldiers deserting is around 100,000. Often times these soldiers take their weapons with them. These are guns that were sold to the Mexican government with the approval of the US Government. This is where these M16s and M4s are coming from.
Back in 1994 when Clinton initiated the “assault weapons” ban, the response in the election two months later was the ejection of many of the congressional leaders that voted for the ban and this in turn cost the democrats the majority in congress. Clinton himself stated this fact in his book he wrote after he left office.
As a result, over 70 democrats in Congress have expressed the fact that they would not support the reinstatement of the assault weapon ban which had absolutely no affect on crime. They remember the lessons of 1994 well and want to keep their cushy jobs.
Since the Obama administration knows they have no chance of passing such a new gun law, they are opting to get the CIFTA treaty passed which will impose new gun laws on the American people. This treaty would call for nationwide gun registration and potential confiscation. It also makes reloading illegal and also calls for the extradition of gun dealers to foreign countries if found guilty of violations. It also calls for the confiscation of any gun it considers "illicit". These are just a few of the many Articles of this treaty that would erode our second ammendment rights. This was a treaty signed by Clinton but was never ratified by the senate. The treaty needs only to be passed by the Senate and does not need house approval. A treaty is the only thing that can supersede the Constitutional protections guaranteed by the 2nd amendment and reinforced by the landmark DC vs. Heller case which clearly stated that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective right as the gun control proponents would have you believe. Why the opponents can think that all the 10 of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, EXCEPT for the 2nd Amendment shows how anti-gun liberals will twist facts to further their agenda. Gun control is not about guns, it is about CONTROL!
In DC vs. Heller, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia did a fabulous detailed job in his writing supporting the majority decision of the court. He went back in history and did the research to find the intention of the founding fathers when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. The research that the majority opinion expressed in his document was unquestionable. Only a complete idiot could argue with the facts presented. But guess what? Four of the Nine judges did in fact vote against the majority decision. It was that close. This tells you that Supreme Court justices vote based on their own personal opinions. Four of the justices were not objective like they are supposed to be but rather followed their own personal and political agendas. This is inexcusable.
The liberals know that so long as the population is armed, the citizens will be able to fight the tyrannical agenda that the liberals want to pursue. They know they can’t do this if the citizenry are able to fight back. The second amendment has nothing to do with duck hunting. It is about armed citizens fighting a tyrannical government and it is the ultimate check and balance against a government that no longer is by and for the people. It is the right that guarantees all the other rights in the Bill of Rights.
An armed individual is a citizen. A disarmed individual is nothing more than a subject.