Conservatives Score With Gun Ruling!

I thought I would share a couple of articles with you all regarding the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Constitution. The original story is after this one, but because this one is more recent and comical, it had to be first! Try to keep a straight face as you read the comments by some of these liberal malcontents as they defend gun bans.

Keep in mind that with gun bans being in place in Chicago and D.C. for decades, the two cities have consistently been among America's most violent and dangerous anyway.

I'll go on record now and predict that in just 2 years, we will find statistics that prove Chicago and D.C. are safer places after treating their citizens like grown-ups and "permitting" them to own handguns, as the US Constitution allows.

-Mike Ford,

Un-associated Press

Contributing to Rare, Conservative Media

Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling has Chicago Thinking It's Next
Friday , June 27, 2008 Associated Press- FOX NEWS Reporting

CHICAGO — As news spread of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., one thing was clear in Chicago: The city's own ban now faces a challenge as serious as any in its 26-year history.
From a visibly angry Mayor Richard Daley to a federal lawsuit filed within hours that challenges Chicago's ban as unconstitutional, there was no mistaking that the high court's opinion Thursday puts the city's law squarely in the middle of a long legal fight.
While swift, the lawsuit wasn't a surprise given that Justice Stephen Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, noted "Chicago has a law very similar to the District's."
Click here to read the full opinion on the Supreme Court Web Site.
Click here for photos.
"In the sense the Supreme Court has found this is an individual right to bear arms, we recognize (the ruling) is a significant threat," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city's law department. "It gives people an opening to challenge the ordinance in a way it hasn't been challenged in many years."
Hoyle said the high court's ruling that Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense does not invalidate Chicago's law, and attorneys are confident they can successfully fight any challenge to the 1982 ordinance that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.
"We have very strong legal arguments to make at every level of the courts," she said, pointing out that the law establishes reasonable restrictions for densely populated urban areas.
Still, Hoyle fully expects legal challenges.
In fact, even as Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, was saying his organization may give Chicago and other Illinois municipalities time to change their laws, his group and others were filing a lawsuit against the city and Daley.
"By banning handguns, Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies under color of state law which deprives individuals ... of their right to keep and bear arms," reads the lawsuit filed by the ISRA, the Second Amendment Foundation and four individuals.
The National Rifle Association planned to file a similar complaint against San Francisco, which bars people from carrying handguns on county property, including in parks, schools and community centers.
The quick action is welcome news to gun enthusiasts, who say such laws have chipped away at their rights.
"The justices just ruled today to uphold the Constitution," said Deb Gales, who owns Deb's Gun Range in Hammond, Ind., just across the state line from Chicago. "We all know that these anti-gun laws have been passed to the detriment of law-abiding citizens."
But all the talk about greater freedoms for gun owners doesn't begin to explain what the ruling means in Chicago, which has seen a recent spate of gun violence.
Nine people were killed in 36 shootings during one weekend this spring. The next week, five people were found shot to death inside a South Side home.
Chicago Public Schools officials say 27 students have been killed by gunfire since September.
Pamela Bosley lost her 18-year-old son two years ago, when a bullet struck him as he helped a fellow student unload instruments outside a South Side Church.
"If you didn't have the guns, we'd still have our children," she said.
Annette Nance-Holt, whose 16-year-old son was killed on a city bus last spring when someone sprayed bullets inside it, was livid with the court's decision.
"I'm still trying to figure out who we are more in love with, our children or our guns," she said. "It's crazy. I'm safer being a deer knowing people are hunting you."
Daley was also troubled by the ruling.
He predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost.
"It's a very frightening decision," said the mayor, who routinely speaks out against guns, as he did after the fatal mass shootings at Northern Illinois University and a suburban women's clothing store. "We believe every mayor will be outraged by this."
District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the ruling "just flies in the face of reality. You just wish the Supreme Court could spend a week in public housing and then come out with this decision. It's very easy and comfortable to stand there with security guards and metal detectors and make these decisions."
Back in Chicago, Nance-Holt agreed.
"They live in safe neighborhoods," she said. "They don't have this. Until it's their family member, they're going to keep voting that way."


Supreme Court favors Second Amendment gun rights
(story below)

Praise God!!!

Notice that this was a 5-4 ruling. Understand that if this ruling went the other way, it would have made precedent that would have affected issues in every state regarding the individual gun rights of citizens.

The next President will choose 1 to 3 of the next appointed Supreme Court Justices.

I've never been too crazy about Bush, and didn't support him in the Republican Primaries, because I thought he was too "establishment".

However, on days like this, I'm glad the it was he who appointed the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito instead of leaving it up to John Kerry. I was glad on 9/11 that he was making decisions instead of Al Gore.

I'm less crazy about McCain than I was about Bush, but with more Gun issues coming up, along with other imminent issues like Protecting Traditional Marriage and Unborn Children, we must understand that the appointees that Presidents make have a larger impact on our society than Presidents personally do. We cannot afford to allow Barack Hussein Obama to become the next President. No way. Vote Republican!!!


-Mike Ford,

Un-associated Press

Contributing to Rare, Conservative Media


Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008 (H.J. RES. 89)

Check out this and other sites geared to get a Pro-Marriage Amendment done!
Contact your Representative and tell them you want them to support HJ RES 89!!!

http://capwiz.com/afanet/issues/bills/?bill=11451941&alertid=11451996

Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008 (H.J. RES. 89)Bill # H.J.RES.89Original Sponsor:Paul Broun (R-GA 10th)Cosponsor Total: 82(last sponsor added 06/20/2008) 5 Democrats 77 Republicans

About This Legislation:
This amendment to the U.S. Constitution would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman.
Detailed, up-to-date bill status information on H.J.RES.89.

The Gay Marriage Debate

I recently saw this question on another conservative Internet community, in response to suggestions that we should mobilize conservatives to challenge California's liberal judges and their decision to justify gay marriage.

What would YOU say to defend marriage? I have read of court challenges to same-sex marriage as being weak, and perhaps the reasons for traditional marriage are simply too obvious to us, but what would YOU state as an effective argument? I am looking for important points to put out there that will be convincing to ALL Americans, if possible.

It was a good question. Below was my answer. Check it out, and leave a comment below to give your take...

Polygamy used to be legal, but is no longer a legal option. It is now unlawful for multiple parties to marry. Why?

It is unlawful for us to marry our first cousins, now. Why?

It is unlawful for us to intermarry with other blood relatives, like sisters, moms, etc. Why? (Genetic mishaps may be some one's answer, so the next question is: If my sister has had a hysterectomy, and I am sterile, is it okay?) Uh, no.

It is unlawful for a 35 yr old man to marry a 15 yr old girl, and definitely a 15 yr old boy, even though they have reached puberty. Why?

Who's to say that all love is not beautiful? Who are we to judge based on our theory of right and wrong? That's right, without moral absolutes to ground our country with the Judea-Christian values it was founded on, there is no argument for any of these scenarios. If it feels good, do it, as long as both parties are consensual.

Where does this end? If 2 men can get married because there is no secular reason for the government to forbid it, than the natural course that will follow is the state and federal Supreme Courts being bombarded with requests to rule that all other taboo unions are being violated unjustly.

We will see a state like perhaps Utah, where religious sects will use precedent to justify polygamy, combined with the freedom of religion. That will set precedent for some pervs in California who are members of a swingers community to request an expanded multi-party marriage, such as 3 men and 3 women. The cult in Texas that has been in the news recently will have grounds for a civil suit, since their cult was broken up for polygamy and under-aged spouses. That will set precedent for anything under the sun, and it won't stop with no boundaries of marriage.

This will re-set the boundaries of legal sexual behavior, dependents, adoption, employee benefits, and immigration.

Statutory rape will have to be re-thought if the above precedents conclude that a teenager can make an informed decision about marriage. So, if a 40 yr old teacher is sleeping with students, who's to say it's wrong. Will the limits of child pornography be weakened? Will bestiality become legal? Movie ratings will become hypocritical, and Hollywood will stop at nothing to expand their audiences.

If 2 or more couples have been joined in marriage, and one of the wives has children, will all of them technically be legal guardians? Who gets to claim Johnny on their taxes?

Will adoption agencies look the other way when legally-liberated sex addicts, who have been joined together in unholy matrimony with others into a "family", apply to adopt pre-teen and teen foster children? Will this be the beginning of a new underground means for sex slavery?

If a company offers benefits to the employee, spouse and legal dependents, won't they be forced to cover multi-member marriages and the legal dependents of these groups, even if they are not their biological children? How will this affect the American Health Care crisis?

Would it not make sense for groups of friends or relatives to get married as a formality to obtain group benefits through an employer? What's love got to do with it? Health care is expensive, you know?

How about anchors of immigration? Marriage and parenthood. Why not marry a dozen immigrants who are attempting legal status, get pregnant, and anchor them all? For a fee?

There are many unseen dynamics to this issue. So, not only would this, in my opinion, destroy the traditional American family structure, but may very well end voluntary employer provided group benefits as we know it. (I say voluntary because most Democrat/Socialist Health Care plans are now mandating employers to provide coverage.) This will also have a profound impact on Life Insurance and estate litigation. Our judicial system is already turning America into a circus, and this will make it our country a disgraceful laughing stock for the rest of the "civilized" world to mock.

Personally, I like to give a well rounded argument to a cause like this, along with the condemnation of evil in order to give to God and Caesar. But, at some point, we as Christians had better get over our apologetic mentality and develop the posture of authority and dominion. Thy "KINGDOM" come means something.

We don't live in a Democracy, where everyone, no matter how sick they are, has a say. We live in a Republic, where leaders emerge and are empowered by the participating masses. We don't seek advice and ask for opinions from everyone who might get offended. If 2% of the population wants to be rebellious and disgusting, that's their prerogative. But if they want to flaunt it and redefine sacred things, they need to go get their own country like we did.

90% of Americans believe in God. 68% are Christian. 71% believe that gay marriage should not be legal. The silent majority needs to speak up every once in a while and remind the minority that we intend to run America as we see fit. We can no longer apologize for assuming the responsibility to keep this country, that God gave us, on the right path.

History reveals that the USA was established by Conservative Christians. John Adams said that our Constitution was made for a religious and moral people and unsuitable for any other. Adams stressed that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together in what he called an "indissoluble" bond.

Patrick Henry - "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court - and one of the three men most responsible for the Constitution - declared: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty - as well as the privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

The list goes on for miles. Many Christians wonder why or if there is a reason to engage in this controversy. I say keep it simple. Let's do it because we should and no one else will.
-Mike Ford,
Un-associated Press
Contributing to Rare, Conservative Media

PS- For anyone who wonders "what's the big deal with gay marriage, it doesn't affect me" I recommend these articles by Dennis Prager and Randy Hicks.

Then there's the literature you can order free of charge from Family Research Council: www.frc.org/family

http://www.protectmarriage.com/why.php

California: http://www.nomcalifornia.org/site/c.htJSJaMQIuE/b.3958623/