Today is the 244th anniversary of The Shot Heard Round The World (the commencement of the American Revolution at Lexington Green). Sometimes, I think it is high time for a second shot heard over the same expanse because of all of this socialistic, communistic, tyrannical oppression heaped upon our shoulders by the governors of many, but thankfully not all, our states and oft times by federal politicians. If that is not enough to trigger another such shot then I imagine we are doomed to wear the yoke of those who fawn for rule by tyrants and are enslaved by the false security they offer at the expense of our liberty. Liberty to exercise our right to overthrow tyrants, supported by our right to keep and bear arms, is the only thing that keeps us truly secure but we must exercise that liberty from time to time!
All the best,
Glenn B
Hmm, I would never have thought that a guy like Arthur Frommer, the man behind all those Frommer travel guides, would be an extreme intolerant leftist bent upon denying others their Constitutional and states' rights, but maybe such is exactly the case. You see Mr. Frommer has come out of the closet so to speak in his blog. In his blog post: Do Guns at Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping Arizona for Now he in essence states that he will avoid traveling into the state of Arizona because extremists are allowed to carry firearms outside of political rallies. He states that this is not due in any manner to the political affiliation of President Obama whose rally was the one in question and says he would do the same if it had been a rally held by Ronald Reagan. In exercising my right to freedom of speech, allow me to address Mr. Frommer further: Mr. Frommer - shame on you for saying such because truth be told plenty of people have carried firearms outside of political rallies before but you have never opened your mouth or typed away on your keyboard about it before now have you; then again neither has the mud slinging media - has it! As a mater of fact - did you decide to boycott states in which the Black Panther Party is found. I seem to remember, unless I am mistaken, them showing up in force with openly exposed weapons outside of polling places during a recent presidential election where they seemingly (at least it seemed that way to many who reported on it) intimidated potential voters among others. Heck that could potentially threaten free elections couldn't it; but then they did support then Senator Obama in his run for the presidency so I suppose that made it okay in your eyes. As for Ronald Reagan, whom you brought into this debate, he was the first presidential candidate ever endorsed by the NRA. He likely would have welcomed such activity outside of his political events when carried out by law abiding citizens who were merely exercising their right to keep and bear arms, their right to free speech and their right to assembly. Mr. Frommer - This is the United States of America - we do not live in a totalitarian regime such as that of Cuba, the former Soviet union, the former Taliban controlled Afghanistan, or North Korea. People within the United States of America, including the state of Arizona have rights, are guaranteed those rights by our Constitution, and are at liberty to legally exercise those rights. Have you forgotten that? The people who carried those firearms outside of the rally were simply exercising their rights as a way of making a political statement. They posed no threat to the life of the president. They were not extremists, they were regular citizens sir; yes regular citizens do carry firearms. I have carried a firearm at every political event I have ever attended but have never been a threat to anyone while doing so. Now you may think that a clever statement on my part because I am a federal agent and I have attended many political events in my official capacity but let me assure you I also carry when off duty and have done so at political events in the past. Of course, you may also think yourself clever in making the blog post that you did in which you apparently implied those legally exercising their rights to be extremists. You seemingly also blatantly stated that others should consider avoiding travel to Arizona, then basically denied doing so: I mean come on now Mr. Frommer what did it mean in the title of the post when you said:
"Then Consider Skipping Arizona For Now"? Then in the post you said this:"For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. " Wasn't that statement in the blog post title a suggestion for others to at least consider boycotting travel to Arizona - or did you mean they should do it covertly at first? Then again, maybe you meant they should hop, skip and jump through the state when you said they should "... consider skipping Arizona..."? It sure seems to me like it was meant to mean they should boycott travel to Arizona but of course you being more liberal minded than me could have a totally different interpretation of that statement - couldn't you?By the way, you made a broad, and my bet is pretty hollow, statement there when you said: "I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks...". So does this mean you will not travel in the great majority of states within the United States, or was that just a rash statement on your part? You see, almost every state within our Union allows citizens to carry firearms while they walk the sidewalks - some with more, some with less, restriction than others but almost all allow some form of open or concealed carry of firearms. In no state is a citizen, legally or otherwise, allowed to carry a firearm into a presidential rally whereby the president could be under threat - such is simply not allowed for by the United States Secret Service. By the way, the Secret Service was not concerned about a threat from these folks were they. Had they believed any of these armed citizens to have been credible threats they would have detained them for questioning - don't you think? It certainly is within their authority to do so, and they do so regularly with even unarmed citizens who are apparent threats to the well being of any of our presidents. So tell me, if these armed citizens were such extremists, if they posed such a terrible threat to the safety of the president, or even to attendees at the rally, then why did the Secret Service or the police not remove them from the scene. The truth be told is that there likely was no real threat and there were only some citizens exercising their rights and liberties - rights and liberties you quite frankly do not seem to like others to exercise.I think you goofed with that blog post, and with the apparent suggestion that others avoid Arizona and states where citizens can carry firearms in public (as in on the sidewalks). I would be willing to bet on that. While you, and some leftists, avoid travel to the state of Arizona - and to other states wherein others like myself who enjoy our liberties and rights - citizens who exercise their rights and liberties will flock there in order to counteract any damage you may have tried to do. Likewise while your travel guide sales may increase among the leftists, I can assure you that I for one will never knowingly again add one penny to your coffers by purchasing anything you have written, edited, endorsed or published. I would urge others who value their rights and liberties to consider doing likewise, or to protest your views in any legal way, as a form of exercise of their freedom of speech but my guess is I do not need to do so. I figure that they will not require any prompting from me to do so because you have shot yourself in your foot on this one without any help from me.*********
Folks, if you are about to take a vacation or short getaway trip, I urge you to travel to Arizona. Travel there frequently if you can. Visit the Grand Canyon, see Sedona, fly into Flagstaff, visit the Saguaro National Forest, climb the mountians at the Chiricahua National Monument, go back in history at Tombstone, be amazed by the colors at the Painted Desert, go to the Petrified Forest, see Native American cliff dwellings, visit the Navajo Nation, go to the Buffalo Soldier Museum, enjoy all that Phoenix and Tucson have to offer, drive through the White Mountains - there is a lot to do in this wonderful state. Let the Arizona governor and state legislature know you are doing so despite Mr. Frommer's apparent suggestion to do otherwise. Let them know you travel to and enjoy Arizona because of its stance on the right to keep and bear arms and on its stance regarding freedom of speech. I was just there for 4 months, and would go there again tomorrow if I could. While I was there for work, I must point out that I decided to spend all of my free time there. I could have easily visited other nearby states such as New Mexico, Nevada, or California. While I considered both New Mexico and Nevada, travel by me to California for leisure was simply out of consideration by me due mostly to its extreme leftist stance on almost everything - especially gun rights.All the best,Glenn B
I just read about HR 197 over at Cap'n Bob & the Damsel. Then I checked it out a bit further. Here is a link to a site that gives information about it: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-197 and I have copied and pasted the full text of the bill below. Before you read it, let me tell you what I think of it. It is a great bill, it is about time that someone introduced such legislation but whom is this Representative trying to kid by introducing this bill under the current regime administration. It it would have been well worth contacting our Representatives and Senators to show our support of it if it had been introduced during an administration that was in any even tiny way friendly toward the right to keep and bear arms. The fact is that it has been submitted to committee under what seems to be the most anti-gun administration within my lifetime, and probably within the lifetime of our nation. Does the Honorable Representative Clifford Stearns of Florida, who introduced this bill, actually think it even has a chance of passing through and surviving committee? Does the Honorable Rick Boucher believe that his co-sponsorship of this bill will matter? I just find it all to be wishful thinking.
Having said all of that, will I support the bill. You bet I will. I will be making calls, sending emails, writing and mailing letters to my elected representative Carolyn McCarthy all the while knowing it will do absolutely no good in swaying her mind on the issue of gun control. She is the most rabidly anti-gun person I can think of in the United States. Yeah, I know, her hubby was killed by a lunatic gunman on the Long Island Railroad, and she rode that fact all the way into a seat in Congress. She still hangs her hat on it too. I can feel for her, but I sure would never vote for her, not with her anti-gun agenda; but I will try to sway her over to our side regardless. It is too bad she did not strike out against the real culprit in the case of her husband's murder - she should have called for the death penalty against the dirtbag who killed him. Then she should have tried to make it so that every citizen could be armed for self defense and defense of the Constitution. Had her husband, son and others on the train been armed, maybe they would have killed the criminal instead of being shot themselves.
The thing is that is my way of thinking and not hers. The thing is that the HR 197 bill is Representative Clifford Stearns' way of thinking not hers, and not the rest of Congress' either. It is a real shame that this bill was not introduced at a better time, when it at least stood a chance of becoming law. It is, by my guess, just so much window dressing for something else that Jones has up his sleeve. Of course, I have been wrong before on matters of great importance like this one and that is why you can bet your bottom dollar that I will support it just as I said I will do. If enough people support it, well maybe it will pass, or at least make us feel good that we tried getting it passed. Wasn't it our current president who said his administration will be one of change? What a change this would be indeed!
Without further babble from me, here is the text of the bill:
HR 197 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 197
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 2009
Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
‘Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents
‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
‘(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.
‘(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
‘926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.’.
Well there it is. I recommend supporting it, but just not getting your hopes up too high.
All the best,
Glenn B
...while you still have them to exercise. I refer especially to your liberties and rights pertaining to firearms and ammunition ownership. Obama was one of the most anti-gun senators of all times, and if you do not think that he will make plans to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, and probably do even worse than that, then you are either a fool or someone without the capacity for logical thought (hmm, I suppose those two things are the same).I think you should have already taken a hint from my last two posts and gotten round to action already; but in case you are slow to get going, or if you just cannot see a hint when it is right there in front of your face, then allow me to be blunt: GO OUT NOW AND BUY AS MANY FIREARMS, AND THE AMMUNITION FOR THEM, AS YOU CAN AFFORD. CHANCES ARE THAT PRETTY SOON FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION SALES WILL SKYROCKET CAUSING PRICES TO GO UP. FURTHERMORE, THE CHANCES ARE ALSO VIRTUALLY A SURE THING THAT SOON AFTER OBAMA IS ORDAINED HOLY SAVIOR OF MANKIND SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT, LEGISLATION WILL BE PASSED SWIFTLY TO SEVERELY CURTAIL OUR RIGHTS WITH REGARDS TO FIREARMS OWNERSHIP. If you don't get it by now, then I suppose you never will, but I'll try to explain it one more time briefly: The right to keep and bear arms is the most important one we have. Without it, and without our ability to protect our freedoms, rights and liberties, the government will be able to place the yoke of servitude upon us. That is not the American way. In the U.S. of America it is the government that is supposed to serve the people and not the other way around; but from what I have heard during Obama's campaign he sees that the other way around. Heavens help us!All the best,Glenn B
