Here is a father of a victim of the Columbine shooting's testimony to Congress in May of 1999. Together with the testimony of the father of a child who was immersed in the Sandy Hook tragedy one of sound mind would think that the lawless will commit crime no matter what the law is. This can only prove that the movement to disarm Americans can only have evil intent. IMO this hits a nerve concerning the decay of our society.

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott

Source: Snopes says this speech was made to a sub committee in May 1999

Snopes says this speech was made to a sub committee in May 1999

Outstanding. Thanks.

Leave my wife out of this!:D

The reaction to gun laws by the people of the North Country
 

I apologize if this has already been posted in this thread or others like it. These videos (the first being a quick summary and the second being a longer version of the first) is the people's reaction to gun laws in the North Country ie Northern New York. If you have a moment, enjoy

shorter version : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTdhV...pOS9KQ&index=1

longer version : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1SzjHPFGw

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights
 

Outstanding piece in the Polemicist blog. I've been struggling with articulating my views on gun rights with friends, family and even strangers I've sat next to on planes. Not getting emotional or reacting to their irrational frothing, but sticking to the basic arguments and facts.

This is a pro-gun rights piece, but written by a New Yorker who considers himself a "left-socialist". He is not a gun owner, but believes in a full definition of the 2A. I could not have worded it any better than he did, and will borrow heavily for discussions with those in my AO.

(I didn't post the full blog here, as there are embedded videos and charts.)


The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights [LINK]

Excellent argument!

I disagree with his premise that the right is a "political" right. It is a right, pre-dating any sort of Government. The intention of the 2ndA is simply a protection of that right. The right itself is not written. The reason it is not written is because once you write down a right, that then permits lawyers to dissect the right, just like people try to do with a simple statement like the 2ndA. That is the reason the right is not written as "We the people have the right to hunt." or "We the people have the right to use firearms to fight a corrupt Government." It is not written because it existed before the USofA. The simple right to have and use firearms for any legitimate purpose imagined. Even just for the hell of it if we want.
So, I disagree with the "political" reason for his description of why the 2ndA was needed when written. It is (IMHO) simply a statement insuring a right is not infringed upon. Also (IMHO) it is not doing its intended job. We are not allowing it to do its intended job.
Ever since 1934 the Government has been doing exactly what this statement (the 2ndA) prohibits. Infringing. Funny how almost every other right has been expanded. The speech right has been extended to the point of people being allowed to tell LEOs to fuck off, give them the finger, and so on. Say bad words on the radio, show tits and ass on TV, and so on and so on. The right to vote has also been expanded, from once only allowing property owners (white type, one each) to vote. That right has since been expanded to allow women, minorities, and such to vote. All this expansion is no doubt, good for the American Citizen. For some reason however, the right to bear firearms has been more and more restricted. I find this funny (not in a haha way) and sad at the same time. Why are we, as American Citizens allowing this to happen? Why are we not fighting this tooth and nail? Why did people allow this to happen in 1934 and onward?
:) Just some food for thought.

Dan Bongino: “In a society of wolves you DO NOT fight back by creating more sheep.”

http://www.therightscoop.com/awesome...eople-control/

A short story on gun control from our neighbors to the north.

REGISTERING FOR CONFISCATION

January 8, 2013

Brian Lilley gives an important warning to his American friends: Registration of firearms will lead to the confiscation of firearms.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../2081848359001

I agree with you on that. Thanks for your thoughts on it.

Since 25-30% of gun owners are Dems, I would expect a lot more Dems to be sounding off about not wanting additional gun controls. I've tried googling for articles, blogs, etc from Dems arguing for gun rights. I can't find much. I did find the web site for "Democrats for Gun Ownership" [LINK].

No Democrat in the Senate has come out against Obama's gun plan. None. I don't view the Second Amendment as a Dem vs Rep issue but apparently we can't do what's right anymore, because it doesn't follow the party line.

As you say, grog18b, there are points in the Polemicist's "Rifle on the Wall" that might not fit my views, but I was delighted to find someone left of center who was willing to speak up for the 2A. I wonder if anyone is listening to him...

Excellent Letter.

In my personal view the Second Amendment's intent was for Military Style Weapons, current ones too. Still kicking myself for not buying that suppressed mp5 they had in the now closed Scottsdale gun shop in 03. Thought 10k was too much! I guess not being woken up by the ATF doing surprise visits to check on it is some consolation...nice :rolleyes:

Can't imagine the uproar if the vacuous puttered with the First Amendment in the same manner they do with others, it couldn't possibly be self serving, could it?

An entertaining thought; current leaders draft a new Amendment, only four hundred pages long.

I fear the subtleties of complex, realistic, and profound thought combined with language craftsmanship are long gone from our elected leaders, and has been replaced with let's do something...whatever it is, we'll know what's in it when it is passed...

'Fundamental transformation' means destroying the basis. Doesn't require any more subtle, complex, realistic or profound thought than does using an ax to chop down a tree.

This is excellent and sums up the problem entirely! Thank you for posting this.

And that is why I will always practice civil disobedience when it comes to registering.