Brad Correia was tucking his young children into bed when he heard a knock at the front door. He holstered his .45, then opened the door to find an 18-year-old man claiming his car had broken down. According to police, Correia let him in. "His clothes were soaked, he was bleeding and he'd lost one sneaker in the mud. I thought that if he were my son, I'd want someone to help him ... ," Correia explained. But the teen's story kept changing, so Correia secretly phoned police and discovered that his guest was a suspected purse-snatcher. When the suspect realized who was on the other line, he leapt from the chair. "That's when I pulled my gun," Correia said. The suspect quickly changed his tune and police apprehended him within minutes. (The Standard-Times, New Bedford, MA, 02/27/08)
Loud noises interrupted Julius Billy's discussion with his wife. According to police, a man tried to kick open the back door and continued lurking outside. Billy says he was forced into action because the man was on the side of the house where his 5-year-old slept. He grabbed his 9mm handgun and repeatedly ordered the man to the ground, but he wouldn't comply. " ... He kept coming toward me," Billy recalled. "He even jumped a little fence towards me and said, 'Go ahead. Shoot me.'" Billy did just that, and the man fell. Billy ran inside to ensure his wife was calling 9-1-1, then returned to the back yard." ... This time he told me not to shoot," Billy said. Police arrested the man minutes later. (The Fort Worth Star Telegram, Fort Worth, TX, 03/15/08)
After a man was killed at his apartment complex, Phillip Reinhardt bought a 9mm handgun and kept it nearby while he slept. Months later he was glad he had it. Police say an 18-year-old intruder kicked in Reinhardt's dead-bolted door just before dawn. The commotion woke Reinhardt's girlfriend, whom the intruder grabbed and began to touch inappropriately. Reinhardt came to her rescue, freeing her and firing one shot at the intruder. In hasty retreat, the wounded intruder broke a window and jumped through it. Police found him running down a street. (The Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, UT, 03/16/08)
A Texas homeowner went outside to close his property's gate when two masked men pulled into the driveway. Armed with guns, they demanded drugs and money. According to police, the homeowner said he didn't have anything and told them to leave. Instead, they tried to enter the home and a struggle ensued. The homeowner's wife, who'd been watching the incident unfold from a window, quickly loaded a shotgun and ran outside. "I [told my husband], 'Duck and I'll shoot! Duck and I'll shoot!," she recalls. "And he said, 'No, don't! Don't!' And I was debating whether to shoot or not." In the end, she found a compromise, firing a warning shot into the distance. The frightened suspects fled. "We should feel at home in our own home," the woman said. "We shouldn't feel frightened or afraid of anybody. This is our home." (KRGV-TV, Weslaco, TX, 03/12/08)
"Was that you?" Les Daniel asked his 10-year-old grandson, who was sleeping in another bedroom. "No," the boy said. That was all Daniel needed to hear. Police say he quickly armed himself with two handguns and went to investigate the sounds he'd heard. Fish tank lights in the unlit dining room shone against a hooded stranger. "Who is it?" Daniel asked. "KCP," the man said, apparently meaning Kansas City police. Daniel detected two more prowlers. "Whatever you think I got, you're wrong!" Daniel called out. "There ain't anything in here! You're about ready to die over eight dollars!" Daniel let them know he meant it by racking the slide on his .357-caliber Glock. All three men promptly fled. (The Kansas City Star, Kansas City, MO, 03/12/08) |
With the sad passing of Charlton Heston, his lifelong record of courageously fighting for the restoration and preservation of the civil rights of all Americans comes sharply into our hearts and minds. Forty-five years ago, Chuck Heston marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to correct the wrongs of racial segregation-wrongs existing under the cover of unconstitutional state and local laws. Knowing Chuck, spending time with him, understanding the depth of his feelings and commitment to preserving equality in America has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. Everyone who met him or heard him speak was touched by his power; his intellect; his honest, clear thinking; his towering ability to communicate his beliefs; and his truly humble view of himself. With his courage, his force of will, his ability to communicate with the American people, Chuck Heston had few peers. During the last years of his life-as NRA members-we were blessed to march with Chuck Heston to preserve and strengthen the Second Amendment. I can tell you that most of all, what he wanted under the Second Amendment for all Americans-was equality. Equality. If the fulfillment of the promise of the founders can be summed up in a single word, that is it. Fifty years ago, there were places where children were denied access to public schools and to public universities because of the color of their skin. Signs at public accommodations warned, "No blacks," or "Whites only." Most importantly, fifty years ago in America, there were places where people couldn't vote because of color. It was a time of oppressive laws that have long been erased as unconstitutional, in part thanks to the courage of Americans like Chuck Heston. During that ugly and evil time, the arguments most often put forth to perpetuate Jim Crow laws-separating Americans and denying some their full civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms-revolved around the notion that such discrimination was the business of local or state government. Those excuses to promote inequality have a contemporary and shameful ring. Today, in this presidential primary election, we are hearing that exact same argument about some people's civil rights from politicians who should know better. They are saying it is acceptable that some citizens are more equal than others. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make a hollow claim that they believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, but they say it only applies to some Americans in some places. They call denying that right to others because of political geography "common sense," or "reasonable." Was there ever anything "common sense" or "reasonable" about denying some Americans the right to vote? It doesn't occur to Obama or Clinton, or any other like-minded politicians or members of the media, or their followers that the right to own a firearm is as sacred to all individual Americans as the right to vote. The Second Amendment is indeed like the right to vote. It's your choice, but it cannot, it must not be denied to law abiding Americans. It is not a local option. It is not a state option. Specifically with respect to the D.C gun ban, ABC News reported that Obama expressed "broad support for the rights of local jurisdictions to make such decisions for themselves." "The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, D.C," Obama said. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws ... isn't born out by our Constitution." Gun safety? That translates to a ban on armed self-defense in the home. For some Americans-based solely on political geography, it translates to confiscatory bans on whole classes of ordinary firearms most other Americans own. Equality? No way. For the sake of clarity, let me change a word or two. What would be the public reaction if any public official said: "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate a poll tax or literacy laws for voting ... isn't born out by our Constitution." An unfair comparison? Hardly. I know some people will say, "How dare you make such a comparison?" My answer, is, "How dare you not see it?" Liberty belongs to us all. When it comes to gun laws, D.C residents-a large majority of whom are African Americans-are rendered second class citizens by a local jurisdiction that has denied them a fundamental right and has denied equal protection under the law. In D.C, self-defense in one's home with a working firearm is a crime. In Obama's hometown of Chicago, the political machine took the same tack as D.C in banning handguns for law-abiding citizens. They outlawed compliance with a long-existing gun registration law. Gun bans via local option? That's what New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's coalition of urban politicians is all about. Denying civil liberties one city at a time. Denial of liberty at local option was an affront when Chuck Heston marched with Dr. King and it is an affront now. Civil rights. That's what the NRA has been all about from the beginning. Charlton Heston knew it. You and I know it. That's what gives us our extraordinary strength. We must always remember Chuck Heston, and like him, never back down in our fight to protect the Second Amendment-America's First Freedom. |
A True Threat To Freedom Right now, one of the most antigun politicians ever to set foot in Washington, D.C., may be just one election away from the Oval Office and far too few gun owners realize the true threat to freedom this candidate represents. No, it's not Hillary Clinton-we already know how bad she is. It's Senator Barack H. Obama, D-III., the man who promises "change" while pretending to offer "hope." But exactly what kind of "change" is Obama "hoping" for? It is far too easy for gun owners to slip into a false sense of security, unquestioningly accepting the candidate's promises and proclamations regarding the Second Amendment; but the unreported truth is that Barack Obama has an atrocious record on your most fundamental civil right-the right to a firearm for self-defense. Over the years, Barack Obama has either voiced support for, or voted to enact, laws to:
And he voted against a "self-defense exception," which absolves folks of violating gun bans when their reason for violating those bans is to fend off criminal attack in the home. Go to Obama's website and you'll see his claims of respect for your rights claims which are, at best, misleading. Obama's website claims, "He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting." But as the bumper sticker says - "The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting." In 1996, Obama 's Illinois state senate campaign answered a questionnaire indicating his support for a blanket ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. In 2000, Obama sponsored a "one gun-a-month" law to ration the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizens of Illinois. Obama has supported bans on ammunition magazines, gun-lock mandates, renewal of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and California-style gun registration. He voted against confirmation of both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court, and then refused to sign the pro-gun "friend-of-the-court" brief filed by 55 other senators and 250 House members in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun ban case. In July 2005, Obama voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act-a vote against the rights of every law-abiding gun owner, dealer and manufacturer in America, and a vote against our national defense. Obama even proposed a federal law banning licensed firearm dealers from operating within five miles of any school or park, nationwide! Imagine a map with a five-mile circle drawn around every school and park in the United States. Unless you live in the wilderness interior of Alaska, you probably couldn't find a law-abiding gun dealer anywhere under Obama's ban! Yet, while Obama's disdain for Second Amendment freedom appears limit- less, his attitude toward armed, violent criminals has been one of benign neglect, at best. In 1999, on a vote in the Illinois senate on whether to try teenage gang-bangers as adults when they fire a gun on or near school grounds, Obama voted "present" -the functional equivalent of "NO"! In 2001, when Illinois lawmakers tried to control rampant gang violence by making gang members eligible for the death penalty when they commit murder to help their gang, Obama voted against the measure. Responding to a Chicago Tribune questionnaire, Obama said he believed federal mandatory-sentencing laws used to put armed and violent predators behind bars should be abolished! And if those same violent criminals attack you, Obama opposes your fundamental, God-given right to protect yourself. He opposes your Right to Carry. In fact, according to Obama's own hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, Obama supports federal legislation to ban the Right to Carry for everyone but police officers! Obama supported Washington, D.C.s total ban on handguns in the home for self-defense; and when Illinois lawmakers introduced a bill that would exonerate citizens for violating local gun bans if they used a gun to defend themselves in their homes, Obama voted "NO"! Even attorney Walter Dellinger, who tried to defend the Washington, D.C., gun ban before the U.s. Supreme Court, admitted, "It is a universal or near universal rule of criminal law that there is a self-defense exception. It goes without saying." In other words, Barack Obama's position is even more anti-gun than the District of Columbia's! Obama's record is clear-his concept of "hope and change" will surely result in anti-gun/anti-freedom changes bringing more hopelessness for the most helpless in our society. Now is the time to act! Every gun owner in America must be alerted to Obama's record. Please, tear out this page, copy it and distribute it to fellow gun owners, hunters, shooters, family and friends. Spread the word and get ready for the most important election battle of our lifetime. |