David Moore Jr.

They mention a Illinois republican lying but what about a Connecticut Attorney General that lied?  Nope I saw no stories posted on Yahoo.  Have you?

Racism is the biggest reason for the great American people of African heritage to reject any form of gun control.  Gun control is NOT crime control!

http://www.blackplanet.com/Blacks4-2ndamendment/

http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/

http://www.blackgunowners.org/

http://www.nraila.org/

http://www.gunowners.org/

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Some additional interesting facts

I did 34 miles yesterday, then 47 miles today.

The liberal democrats do not see undocumented immigrants as “illegal immigrants”.. no, they see them as “undocumented democrats”!

See?  In Chicago they say people should not be allowed to use a firearm to defend themselves, and California (statewide) same thing.  The politicians think that the police are the only “chosen ones”.  Looks like the police are either corrupt with ego (being the “chosen ones”) or or are overwhelmed by the high crime in those places.  Allow citizens their right to defend them selves by simply deterring crime and you will see that the police’s jobs will be much easier!   Look at Vermont  and Kentucky as examples.

CHICAGO – Minutes after a suburban Chicago police officer was charged with striking a motorist with his baton, prosecutors handed out copies of a video showing the beating — taken by a dashboard camera on the officer’s own squad car.

In California, after a transit cop and an unruly train passenger slammed against a wall during a struggle and shattered a station window last fall, video from a bystander’s cell phone was all over the Internet before the window was fixed.

The same cell phones, surveillance cameras and other video equipment often used to assist police are also catching officers on tape, changing the nature of police work — for better and worse.

Some say cameras are exposing behavior that police have gotten away with for years. But others contend the videos, which often show a snippet of an incident, turn officers into villains simply for doing their jobs, making them targets of lawsuits and discipline from bosses buckling to public pressure.

“We tell our officers all the time you’ve got to assume that everything you do is going to be videotaped,” said Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis. “Everyone has a cell phone and almost every cell phone has a camera.”

Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez said the video her office gave to the media on Tuesday shows police officer James Mandarino, from the Chicago suburb of Streamwood, hitting motorist Ronald Bell 15 times after a traffic stop last month.

In the video, Mandarino is seen firing a Taser at a passenger in the car and then striking Bell, who is on his knees with his hands on his head. Bell suffered a concussion and cuts that required seven stitches.

“It’s a wonderful tool,” Alvarez said of the video, which she says suggests that both men posed no threat to the officer.

Though police-behaving-badly videos have become popular staples of cable news shows and the Internet, Weis said he doesn’t believe his officers are overly cautious out of fears they’ll be videotaped — and their superiors are not advising them to be.

Quietly, though, some officers say the prospect of being videotaped makes them hesitate even if they know they should act.

“I’ve heard from officers who are sent to break up a fight in the street and see a group of people leaning out windows with handheld video cameras … they go slower and are less aggressive,” said Tom Needham, a Chicago attorney who has represented several police officers.

But University of Chicago law professor Craig Futterman, who has studied police brutality, said videos are helping hold police accountable.

“My own view is that YouTube has done more to expose the reality of police abuse than all the blue-ribbon commissions combined,” said Futterman.

A Chicago police officer who was arrested three years ago in the videotaped beating of a female bartender never would have been charged much less convicted if not for the video, Futterman said. Anthony Abbate initially was charged with a misdemeanor until the video played across the world.

Ronald Bell’s brother, Stacey Bell, said he doubts the Streamwood officer would have been charged with felony aggravated battery and official misconduct without the video and his brother still would have faced charges of drunken driving and resisting an officer, which were dropped.

“I believe it would have been six witnesses against an officer and it would have been a different story,” said Stacey Bell, who witnessed the alleged beating. The officer’s attorney declined to comment.

But some caution that incidents caught on tape can misrepresent police work.

“The work of a police officer, even when done properly is … not pleasant to watch,” said Al O’Leary, spokesman for the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association in New York City. “We’ve had situations, circumstances where an officer doing his job by the book is caught on video is tagged as brutal. Sometimes the work is brutal but necessary.”

In California when the Bay Area Rapid Transit officer slammed into a window with a suspect during a violent arrest, the cell phone video — viewed more than 160,000 times on one clip posted on YouTube — ended up exonerating the officer whose actions brought claims of excessive force, a union official said.

“It wasn’t the suspect’s head that caused the glass to break,” said Jesse Sekhon, BART police officers union president. “When you freeze the video and enhance it you see it was the suspect punching it with his hand.”

What’s more, video viewers rarely hear the frantic 911 call for help, rocks hurled at an approaching squad car or the countless times police have been called to the same house.

In New York City in 2008, a man died after falling from a building ledge when police jolted him with a Taser. Video of the last few moments, including Iman Morales’ fall, was posted on newspaper Web sites and played over and over again on local TV.

But before the cameras were running, “this guy was stark naked, running up and down the fire escape, he tried to get into a woman’s apartment by tearing out the air conditioner, terrifying the woman,” and swung a fluorescent light bulb at police before Lt. Michael Pigott ordered him shot him with the stun gun, said Tom Sullivan, president of the NYPD’s Lieutenants Benevolent Association.

Eight days later, Pigott — stripped of his gun and badge and demoted — committed suicide, leaving a note saying he was trying to protect his men. His widow, who is suing the police department, said the discipline humiliated her husband. The department declined to comment.

There is little chance that the videotaped scrutiny of police will slow. In fact, groups with video cameras follow police in cities all over the country, including Orlando, Fla., where George Crossley launched Orlando CopWatch in 2006.

“If we come up on law enforcement, the whole shift knows immediately,” said Crossley. “They get on the radio (and say) ‘Watch out for CopWatch.’”
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cops_on_camera

At the end of March, troops of a major drug cartel launched a series of attacks on military personnel and installations in a half dozen cities in the northern Mexican states of Nueva Leon and Tamaulipas. Fortunately, things did not work out as the narco-thugs had hoped. At least 18 of them are now taking the kind of siesta from which there is no awakening and, at last count, only one Mexican soldier was injured.

Contrary to the notion that the cartels depend on semi-automatic rifles bought illegally in the United States, the cartel conducted its attacks with a variety of weapons that cannot be legally bought anywhere in our country. As the Los Angeles Times reported, “In coordinated attacks, gunmen in armored cars and equipped with grenade launchers fought army troops this week. . . . The army said it confiscated armored cars, grenade launchers, about 100 military-grade grenades, [and] explosive devices” in addition to a large quantity of ammunition.

Contrast that reality with the fiction perpetuated by politicians on both sides of the border. NRA members certainly recall that soon after President Obama took office last year, Attorney General Eric Holder stated his support for an “assault weapon” ban as the solution to Mexico’s drug violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), the sponsor of the federal “assault weapon” ban in 1993, soon called upon President Obama to support the Inter-American Convention Against Illegal Arms Trafficking, claiming, “According to the Mexican government, about 90 percent of the weapons they seize from Mexican drug cartels came into the country illegally from the United States.” Newspapers around the country fell for the ruse hook, line and sinker, parroting the 90 percent claim, as well as the utterly absurd, mathematically impossible claim that 2,000 guns cross from the U.S. into Mexico each day.

Apoplectic anti-gun members of Congress held dozens of hearings on the Mexico situation, including field hearings along the border. At one dog and pony show in El Paso, former Democrat Party presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) obligatorily called for a ban on the importation of “assault weapons,” a ban already imposed in 1989 by the BATF (as it was then known), apparently without Sen. Kerry’s knowledge. In fact, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Feinstein nearly burst a blood vessel when a witness refused to support her belief that 2,000 guns crossed the border every day.

U.S. politicians have since maintained a low profile on the issue, fearful of the potential for a backlash at the polls in November. Last month, however, Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, complained that “there are more than 10,000 gun stores along the American border with Mexico. . . . So, the United States must stop the flow of assault weapons to Mexico.”

The claim is no more true today than when it was first floated a year ago. As we have noted, most of the guns that Mexico has seized from the cartels and asked the BATFE to trace (because markings on those particular firearms indicated that they came from the U.S.) represent only a small percentage of guns that Mexico has seized.

This was stated, though not clearly, in a Government Accountability Office report last summer (see document pages 14-15). However, lest anyone be misled by GAO’s lack of thoroughness on this point, the Department of Homeland Security, in an appendix to the GAO’s report (see page 69), set the record straight.

“DHS officials separately question the statistic involving the origination of weapons as currently presented by GAO,” DHS said. “GAO asserts that, ‘Available evidence suggests most firearms recovered in Mexico come from U.S. gun dealers, and many support Drug Trafficking Organizations.’ and fuel Mexican drug violence. Using the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) eTrace data, GAO determined that about 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced from fiscal years 2004 to 2008 originated in the United States. DHS officials believe that the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e., out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those—3,480—originated in the United States.) Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population render this assertion as unreliable.”

In the early part of the 20^th century, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” That is certainly the case in this story. As the vast scope of the Mexican drug cartels’ multi-million dollar arsenals is incrementally uncovered, the attempt by opponents of the right to arms to use Mexico’s problem as the excuse for restricting Second Amendment rights has fallen flat.

And to Mexico’s soldiers who obliterated the cartels’ punks and thugs last week, we say “buen tiro” (translation: “Good shooting”).

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5680

After watching this video: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/27/SCourt/R/31071/Justices+Scalia+Breyer+on+the+Constitution.aspx
I started to think about something else. Did you know that Justice Breyer voted (Castle Rock v. Gonzales) that the police did not have an obligation to protect you?, then in D.C. v. Heller also voted that you do NOT have a right to defend your self.  Now, most Justices would either say the police should protect you , or that you have a right to protect yourself, but not that “no one shall protect you” like Breyer thinks.  Another one like him was Souter (now replaced by Sotomayor).  Yes Breyer and Souter are not in favor or your safety.

Scalia said the police are not obligated to protect you but that you do infact have a right to bear arms.

The link I an sending is a debate on the original meaning of the Constitution, while Scalia is a friend of Freedon, Breyer is NOT.

Friday, March 19, 2010

The notion that lemmings deliberately hasten their demise by rushing into the sea may be a myth, but the anti-Second Amendment group and its spokesmen really are scurrying through a series of blunders that may hasten their steady march to irrelevancy.

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the group’s two theories about the Second Amendment were rejected by the Supreme Court, one of them by five justices and the other by all nine. In 2009, they tried, with no success, to frighten America about tourists carrying guns for protection in national parks.

This year, they’ve insulted their most powerful ally, President Obama, for not setting aside the economy, the war, and his social agenda to push for gun control legislation Congress does not support. They’ve given the states their worst “Brady grades” ever, even though violent crime continues to decrease. And, they’ve badgered the Starbucks coffee company for allowing customers to legally carry firearms in its stores.

This week, though, Brady lawyer Dennis Henigan—the world’s most prolific advocate of the legal theories the Supreme Court sent to the shredder two years ago—further diminished the group’s credibility by claiming “The evidence is overwhelming that the ’shall-issue’ concealed carry laws have been a disaster for public safety. . . . [T]he scholarly research shows that the laws generally have been ‘associated with uniform increases in crime.’”

If he had just pushed himself away from the computer after his first four words, he would have been much better off. There’s “evidence,” all right, and it’s certainly “overwhelming.” Today, there are 36 states with “shall issue” laws—an all-time high. Sixty-three percent of Americans live in “shall issue” states, five million Americans have carry permits, and two states don’t even require a permit to carry concealed.

“Uniform increases in crime”? The nation’s violent crime rate is at a 35-year low.

Since adopting “shall issue” laws, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia have had decreases in violent crime ranging from 26 to 53 percent.

Henigan also claimed to have 33,000 signatures on his anti-Starbucks online petition, which can be signed by anyone with a computer anywhere in the world. But in a country of five million carry permit holders, up to 80 million gun owners, and 300 million people, Brady’s petition and $1.70 will get you …

Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5613

The U.S. Constitution begins with “We the People…” not “We the Subjects…”