Archive for Gun Rights

Bloomberg’s Millions vs. Millions with our 25 bucks

Bloom_Facebook_Default_05

Freedom is not for sale. Not in America, not in ANY town. Bloomberg is one guy with millions. We’re millions with our 25 bucks. Show Bloomberg that your membership will stop him cold! Watch the video below and then head to www.joinNRAnow.org.

Are you one of the good guys?

social_goodguysOne of the most exciting things to come out of this year’s NRA Annual Meeting was this video, reminding us all why we believe in our 2nd Amendment rights. Reminding us of the sheepdogs who watch over our neighborhoods, our cities, and our country. It’s time to believe in the good guys again. We are the 5 million men and women of the National Rifle Association of America. Join us: http://www.JoinNRAnow.org/

TODAY! LIVE stream Wayne LaPierre’s speech at CPAC 2014

PARTNERS_CPAC_SOCIAL_V2[1][24]It has been quite a while since the last major speech by NRA’s President, Wayne LaPierre. He will speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC 2014) TODAY, March 6, beginning at 2:30 p.m. EST.  The coming year will bring great political change and as gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters, we need to keep abreast of the political landscape and what the NRA’s perspective is moving forward. You will find his speech here and will be able to stream it live below, please bookmark this link and set a reminder. Our gun rights are in jeopardy, and we will only prevail if we remain united!

Do you favor background checks on Ammo?

I live in San Diego, which is one of the more conservative areas of California. Tonight in our news paper, the San Diego Union Tribune, they showed the results of a poll that asked:

Do you favor background checks on Ammo?

I was afraid to click on the results, because it is frustrating to see gun related negativity constantly.

I was surprised… The photo below shows the results! (There are pockets of awesomeness in California still!)

Screen Shot 2013-09-06 at 9.42.59 PM

Understanding the Two New Gun Control Executive Actions

Screen Shot 2013-09-02 at 2.21.09 PMLast Thursday, at the ceremonial swearing-in for Todd Jones as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Vice President Biden announced two new Executive Actions that the President planned to take.

One of the Executive Actions would be a policy ending a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The other proposed Executive Action is aimed at stopping those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns. Watch the VPs remarks here:

I do not know enough about gun trusts to comment on that action, and the other action regarding importing our own weapons back into the country, with government approval (as the VP stated), these can only be transferred to private citizens via FFLs, which means the properly imported weapons would end up in the hands of citizens who obtained them legally. The people who will really be harmed by this are the vast community of gun collectors. As with other gun control actions, you’ll notice that Biden only said how many firearms changed hands via these two methods, but he did not say how many deaths were caused as a result of these programs (either the gun trusts or importing our own weapons back into the country.) That is a slick trick, the stats he used were craftily used to scare people. During the last year, there have been record breaking numbers of firearms sales, of all kinds. This is 100% because of this administrations war against guns, in spite of the actual crime statistics, and in spite of the Constitution.

A friend of mine, Savage1R, who is also a contributor on WeLikeShooting.com and has an excellent and informative YouTube Channel made a very easy to understand YouTube Video about these actions. After I watched his video, I finally understood the Gun Trust Executive Action, and as I figured – it is just as ridiculous as the rest. Watch his video on the Executive Actions and then let me know what you think about it.

The only way we are really going to get all of their gun control efforts “under control” is to pay attention, and vote them all out of office.

I Don’t think this is good PR: Colorado gun rights group to protest at Aurora Theater Memorial

Screen Shot 2013-07-18 at 8.58.03 PM

Gun-rights advocates are planning a rally at the same park where a group will read the names of gun violence victims on the anniversary of the Colorado theater shootings, prompting a state lawmaker to call the move “a slap in the face.”  Both start at noon. State Parks spokeswoman Jennifer Churchill said the groups were issued permits for locations that are within sight of each other, but she didn’t know the distance. She said park rangers and law officers would be present to keep the peace. Read more via MiamiHerald.com

The Remembrance ceremony is sponsored by Mayors against Illegal Guns (funded by New York City Mayor Bloomberg), so I do understand the reason that Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) plans to do a simultaneous protest, the only problem is that the general public who does not care one way or another will not see it that way. The Denver Post has advertised the Bloomberg sponsored Remembrance ceremony and they did mention that it is sponsored by Bloomberg’s group, MAIG. Still, they made it seem like it was THE memorial. To the uneducated public, this will look like the RMGO are insensitive, as the media will only mention the pro gun rally on the TV News.  A quick Google search will show you that nearly all the articles about this event include a title about the insensitivity of gun-rights groups. Some battles are better fought another way. The best thing these pro-gun people can do is stuff envelopes, register like minded voters, get petitions signed, work social media and make phone calls to get the word out about the next chances to vote these people and their laws out of our lives!

To the person who does not care about guns at all, the Bloomberg sponsored ceremony will look like a respectful way to remember the victims of the Aurora Theater Shooting. The RMGO group will look like they are taking advantage of a situation and like they are using poor taste, no matter what. I am actually a fan of most of the things RMGO does, I follow them, I am a Colorado resident, but this will be spun as poor taste and I believe will do more harm than good for the perception of gun owners in Colorado. There are other ways. They should quietly attend a different memorial, they could call for volunteerism among their ranks to make the world a better place for a day, they could all just stay home and do nothing for that one day and they will end up ahead. Even though I agree with their agenda 100%, this is not the way, this is not the way at all.  Do they have public relations representatives within their organization?  Or maybe they hired Paula Deen’s PR people.  I hope they rethink this, just the fact they thought of it looks bad.  This is my opinion, what do you think?

P.S. Remember that when they call themselves “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” they don’t just mean the guns that are currently illegal.  They have every intention of making the firearm you already lawfully own illegal as well. 

Hypocrite yes or no? Jim Carrey condemns violence in his own movie Kick-Ass 2

Screen Shot 2013-06-24 at 9.55.55 PMCarrey has shocked producers of forthcoming comic-book sequel Kick-Ass 2, in which he stars as a baseball-bat-wielding masked crimefighter, after denouncing the “level of violence” that permeates the film in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings.

Carrey, who has been an outspoken proponent of increased gun control in the wake of the shootings by gunman Adam Lanza in December, tweeted on Sunday that he could no longer support the film. He wrote: “I did Kick-Ass 2 a month b4 Sandy Hook and now in all good conscience I cannot support that level of violence. My apologies to others involve[d] with the film. I am not ashamed of it but recent events have caused a change in my heart.”

Lil Chantilly Commentary: I have a couple thoughts on this, and they are simple:

1.  If he truly feels strongly enough about this to not promote the movie, he is still a hypocrite if he keeps any money made from this film.  I am all for free speech and standing up for what you believe in, but to make a violent movie after Columbine, the Aurora Theater Shooting, etc, and then to suddenly change his mind after Sandy Hook (they were all tragic) and declare that his own violent art is wrong just hits me as questionable.  If he keeps even a penny, then he is just a hot bag of rotten air.

2.  Along with number one, it seems to me that his career had been faltering the last couple of years.  After awhile, his humor was starting to repeat the same tired middle school jokes, and I had not heard much about him.  That is, until he decided to make fun of Charlton Heston and come out as a gun control proponent, just when then entire public “happened” to be focused on the topic. Isn’t is funny for someone who does not want to promote this new violent movie, how much attention he is getting for himself AND the movie by talking about how much he is not going to talk about it?

The gent doth protest too muchmethinks!

A 15 Year old girl standing up for the 2nd Amendment!

Watch this video – a very well spoken 15 year old young lady takes time to support the 2nd amendment.  Thank you to my friend over at “The Mellow Jihadi” for sending this one my way!

LA Times hides gun control commentary in an article about the Boston Terrorists buying snacks

 Screen Shot 2013-04-22 at 4.55.49 PM

Last night as I read through news, I came across an article from the Los Angeles Times with the Headline:

“Police: Boston bombing suspects lost hostage while buying snacks”

I’ll admit I was mildly interested, as the headline promised an angle with potentially different information (in the dumb criminal realm) from that recycled over and over on cable news. I clicked on it expecting to read something regarding the carjacking incident that eventually led to the police shootout and the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  

Then, like a booby trap, I ran SMACK into the first two paragraphs of the article talking about the gun laws these terrorists were breaking:

The two suspects in last weeks Boston Marathon bombing weren’t licensed to have guns, the Cambridge, Mass., Police Department confirmed Sunday. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, who was captured after a gun battle with police Friday, wasnt old enough to be licensed to own a gun in Massachusetts. The minimum legal age is 21. His older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was fatally wounded hours earlier, never had a license to own or carry a gun in Cambridge, where the pair shared an apartment, Cambridge Police spokesman Dan Riviello told the Los Angeles Times. Its unclear whether he ever applied for a license.

This is exactly how it is going to be from now on, the gun agenda weaved into every issue, as commentary on any crime. What does the quoted paragraph have to do with the headline?  If someone is willing to build bombs and kill innocent people at a positive energy event like a marathon, why do we think they would comply with gun laws?  Why even mention it?

Yes they had guns, and in spite of Massachusetts gun laws in place, they apparently were in possession of them anyway.

This is one of the most poorly written articles by a large newspaper I have ever read.  Even if I disagree with other articles, I rarely call them poorly written.  This article must have initially had a different headline and then changed it for some reason without changing anything about the outline of the article. I don’t know about you, but the fact that evil men broke gun laws does not shock me.  It just backs up the theory of all law-abiding gun owners that gun laws, including those already in place, will not stop evil.

I am going to do EXACTLY what you said Mr. President!

Screen Shot 2013-04-17 at 8.52.48 PM

Today President Obama responded to the defeat of the Toomey-Manchin Bill. He was quite emotional, angry, and showered veiled threats on the Democrats who chose to side with the Constitution. He was surrounded by Sandy Hook parents and Gabby Giffords. Watch the video below of President Obama, and then let’s discuss some of the points he makes in the video:

President Obama: A few moments ago a minority in the United States Senate decided it just wasn’t worth it. They blocked common sense gun reforms.

Lil Chantilly: If the Senate had the required 60 votes they would have passed. You are an Ivy League educated scholar Mr. President, surely you know that it only required 41 votes to shoot down these amendments. There is a reason our system is set up as it is.

President Obama: It wouldn’t have prevented future massacres.

Lil Chantilly: Um… then why spend valuable Congressional time on this?

President Obama asked: “A victory for who? A victory for what?”

Lil Chantilly: This victory goes to the god given rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

President Obama: (Regarding the Sandy Hook parents) “Isn’t their opinion relevant to this debate?”

Lil Chantilly: They have a first Amendment right to speak their mind, and my heart goes out to them. Their opinion, the opinion of Gabby Giffords, are all valid opinions. The millions of responsible gun owners also have valid opinions and a first amendment right to speak our minds. That is the beauty of our country, we can have a civil debate with two different passionate points of view. In the end our elected representatives listen to the opinions and facts presented to them and they vote. Today our representatives, our Senators did just that. The President said they voted against this Bill because they feared they would not be elected next time. I am not as educated as Mr. Obama, but if the constituents have written e-mails, made phone calls, and slammed social media with an overwhelming opinion communicating their displeasure with a Bill, so much so that a Senator worries he will not be elected if he goes against that flood of communication, isn’t that the point? Mr. Obama, they DID listen to us!

President Obama: All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.

Lil Chantilly: Somehow I do not think that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would agree with you.

President Obama: “Even without Congress my Administration will keep doing everything it can.”

Lil Chantilly: I am sure you will, and when you step too far – there will be backlash.

President Obama did say quite a lot that I agree with 100% and I plan on taking his advice. I hope you do to:

President Obama’s closing remarks (summarized, not a direct quote:)

Law enforcement and responsible gun owners Democrats, Republicans, Urban moms, rural hunters, if your elected officials don’t act as you wish, come election time you must remember. From the NRA households, you need to contact the leadership and let them know if they represent your wishes! You outnumber those who argue the other way, you are better organized, and focus on this one issue [2nd Amendment] at election time. We, the American people, must sustain passion about this and must send the right people to Washington.

Yes, I know he was really speaking to the anti-gun crowd, but I KNOW those who actively support the 2nd Amendment out number those who actively support anti-gun legislation. We made our voices heard and the Senate proved that truth today.

In the words of John Paul Jones, an old Navy man, “We have not yet begun to fight!”