Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Shoot1st who wrote (40947)	2/4/2010 3:10:10 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

As always you have great advice. I have had a gun waved at me on occasion. The last time was over twenty years ago by a psychotic driver in Denver. It was before the age of cell phones. I doubt if I would have complained if a cell phone had been available. I know I would not have waved a gun back.

To: Shoot1st who wrote (40947)	9/21/2010 12:22:15 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Trigger The Vote! Chuck Norris September 21, 2010 The surprise victory of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware's U.S. Senate primary confirms what we've suspected all year: This year's critical midterm elections are going to bring real change to Congress. And it won't be the kind of change favored by the "hope and change" crowd; at least I hope not. I've been taking every possible opportunity this year to talk about the importance of voting in these elections. In May, I visited the National Rifle Association's annual meeting and talked about how just about everything -- from U.N. treaties to Supreme Court decisions -- is affected by the power of the vote. You can see that speech on YouTube. The subject is so important to me that I agreed to serve as honorary chairman of the "Trigger The Vote" voter registration campaign, which is funded by the NRA's Freedom Action Foundation. We recently shot a new TV commercial for the campaign, and you can see the Web spot here. I hope you'll take a look. The ad is very comical and has gotten a great reaction from the left and the right alike. Now, a few people have scratched their heads at the humor in the spot. I'm noticing that those people are generally older and already registered to vote, which underscores the fact that this ad is not targeted at them. The ad is targeted at the members of the younger generation who aren't registered to vote. I call this generation the millennials, and the humor in the spot is right up their alley. If you want them to hear your message, you have to speak their language. The proof is in the pudding. Since the ad debuted, the main campaign website has been racking up new voter registrations by the thousands. Now these newly minted defenders of freedom can join our ranks on Election Day to help take back our government. I welcome them to the battle. What are the stakes? They're huge. Our current president has said himself that he's more interested in accomplishing his agenda than in being re-elected. Once these midterms are over, the White House will be politically unleashed to wreak havoc by pushing the most extreme policy agenda that its self-appointed social engineers can devise. If you think Obamacare was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. Consider just a few of the policy items coming up on the Second Amendment front. Since 2001, the United Nations has been working to develop a global gun control treaty. Right at the get-go, John Bolton (George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N.) poured cold water on that idea in a fiery speech that ignited world condemnation. But the ragtag army of delegates pushing for global gun-ban "harmonization" -- many representing despots, human rights violators and tin-pot dictators, by the way -- simply bided their time. In 2009, they got the U.S. president they wanted, and new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wasted no time changing the red flag to green. Now the U.N. cabal is back to drafting a proposed "arms trade treaty" filled with global disarmament mandates. The president can sign treaties, but they must be ratified by the Senate. So only the Senate can keep the citizens of our unsuspecting nation from having the Second Amendment stripped from our Bill of Rights. If you live in one of the 38 states hosting a Senate election this year, consider that when you're deciding on whom to support with your ballot. Closer to home, anti-hunting groups have found a backdoor route for a total ban on traditional ammunition. They quietly have filed a petition with the Environmental Protection Agency demanding a ban on lead ammunition and fishing sinkers. And they just may succeed. The EPA released the petition for public comment just a few weeks ago. A quick 48 hours later, the agency reversed course and announced it would not pursue the ban on ammo. But that's not the end of the story. The anti-hunting groups that filed the petition have filed an official protest of this turnaround by the EPA. I'm not the only one urging people to register and vote. My good friend Bubba Bechtol just released one of his daily "Bubbatorials" on the subject, and you can listen to it online. It, too, is very funny. To check the Second Amendment credentials of the candidates running in your state or district, bookmark this site and check back often for updates. Whatever your motivation may be, register to vote -- now. The deadlines are approaching fast. And on Election Day, cast an informed ballot to protect our Second Amendment rights. Vote Freedom First. townhall.com!

To: Shoot1st who wrote (40947)	2/29/2012 5:52:33 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights Published: 9:48 AM 02/24/2012 Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights. In other words, despite the victories in the Supreme Court, the battle for Second Amendment rights in America is far from over. There is perhaps no better reminder of this unfortunate state of affairs than a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough, an appointee of President Barack Obama. Two pro-Second Amendment groups — the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Illinois Carry — filed a lawsuit last May challenging the ban on carrying concealed guns in the Land of Lincoln, which is the only state with a complete ban on the books. The common-sense basis for the lawsuit is that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry deprives citizens of the fundamental right of self-defense, simply because they are in public. While Judge Myerscough conceded the Second Amendment protects a “general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public,” she tossed out the lawsuit, claiming that the “Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.” As absurd as this federal judge’s ruling appears on the surface, it unfortunately finds some basis in the inchoate opinion issued four years ago by the nation’s high court in Heller. While the five-member majority in that case importantly recognized the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms — and in so finding, invalidated the District’s restrictive gun control ordinance — the actual language of the opinion has been interpreted now to recognize the right to possess a firearm only inside one’s home. Common sense, and a fair reading of the history of the Second Amendment, leads to the obvious conclusion that its guarantee of the “right to keep and bear arms” was never intended to be limited to intra-home firearms. Unfortunately, the uncertainty created by the pinched opinion in Heller — which may have been necessary to secure the fifth vote (Justice Anthony Kennedy) — is now causing serious damage to firearms rights, as is manifest in Judge Myerscough’s recent ruling. SAF and Illinois Carry are taking their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But the lower court’s ruling does drive home a couple of important points. First, the U.S. Senate needs to stop sitting on its hands, and pass the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822), which received overwhelming support in the House last November (passing 272 to 154). This legislation would treat concealed carry licenses much like driver’s licenses, through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, and require states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states. Perhaps even more important, however, this ruling by a lifetime-tenured federal judge reminds us of the importance of presidential appointments to the federal bench — and the severe damage to our Second Amendment rights that can be expected from a second term for President Barack Obama. Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He provides regular commentary to Daily Caller readers. dailycaller.com

To: Shoot1st who wrote (40947)	10/18/2012 8:38:31 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Obama advocates reintroducing assault weapons ban Matthew Boyle 11:22 PM 10/16/2012 President Barack Obama declared during Tuesday’s presidential debate that his goals as president include the reinstatement of a so-called “assault weapons ban” in the United States. As part of a plan to reduce street violence in cities — including in his own hometown of Chicago — Obama proposed “seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.” This appears to be among the boldest pro-gun-control comments Obama has made as president, and the first time has has openly called for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. “So my belief is that, A, we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill,” Obama said when asked about gun control. “We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.” “But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets,” he added. “And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally.” “Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.” Follow Matthew on Twitter: twitter.com!/mboyle1 dailycaller.com