Guns And Home Security

Guns have always been a sure way to protect yourself and your home, although things have changed quite a bit over the years. Even though those who live in the United States have a right to bear arms, there are also certain responsibilities that come along as well. Those who own guns have the responsibility of protecting their home and their family - and also their guns. Anyone who owns a gun may have self protection in mind - although he also has a priority to protect his guns as well
http://www.NewPalmHome.org

Anyone who owns a guns should never allow them to fall into someone else’s hands. To ensure this never happens, the gun owner should always keep his gun collection locked away in a safe or gun cabinet. You can get many different sizes of gun safes, that will hold a variable amount of guns. Anything can happen if the wrong individual gets a hold of your guns, which is why you should always make sure that they are well protected - and locked up.

Gun owners can protect their own property as well, by storing their guns in fireproof gun safes. Fireproof gun safes can protect guns and keep them safe, even if everything else burns to the ground. Even though gun owners have the responsibility to keep their guns out of the reach of others, they also have the right to ensure that no harm comes to their guns as well.
Fireproof guns safes will also keep guns safe from children as well. All children are curious, and like to get their hands on anything they can. If you leave your guns lying around and not locked up, a child will eventually find it. You should also ensure that your guns are never loaded either, as a child can really hurt himself if he finds a loaded gun. Although you may keep your guns locked up in a fireproof safe - you should also make sure that the ammo is out of the guns and locked away in the safe as well.

Keep in mind that children may look for your gun on purpose, knowing that the guns are something that you use. Therefore, simply putting your guns on a higher shelf doesn’t really protect your children. If a child wants something bad enough, he or she will do anything possible to get it. The only real way to keep your guns safe from children is to ensure that they are always locked up in fireproof safe or traditional gun safe.

Children may show interest in guns at an early age, which can be a good thing but can also be a bad thing. At a young age, a child won’t know anything about gun safety. Therefore, if a child happens to come across your guns, bad things can happen. If you have guns if your home, you should always make a point to teach your children gun safety. This way, they will know that they aren’t allowed to handle your guns, and they’ll be aware of what can happen if they do.
By keeping your guns in a fireproof safe or traditional gun safe, you’ll keep your guns safe from children or others. Fireproof safes will also keep your guns safe from fire as well, which makes them an ideal investment. Although you can also get a traditional gun safe if you prefer, fireproof safes are by far the best way to go. You can keep your guns safe from children, others, and even fire - which makes them more than worth the money.
About the Author
Guns And Home Security

Anti-Stab Knife

The anti-stab knife is another product designed to create false hope among the touchy-feely anti self defense crowd. You can bet that the same people who trumpet the "safe" gun will call for a governmental referendum to bring the anti-stab knife to the United States.

We can only hope it happens, since it will further expose the anti-gun crowd's true intentions.
They aren't fighting to stop gun crime or gun violence as they claim. Rather, they are determined to keep Americans from having the ability to fight back when attacked, giving the government even more control of our personal safety.

It is incumbent upon all liberty-minded Americans to fight against the misguided polices put forth by the type of people who honestly believe an anti-stab knife is going to reduce violent crime. As usual, it puts a mechanical limit on a decision by a person to commit a violent act. Over the years, we've learned through failed gun control policies that regulating inanimate objects does little to stop people from committing violent crimes.
Instead, we need to let honest people use the best means of self-defense available, because despite all the promises of government to protect the American people, they historically have failed to do so.

The examples of those failures are horrifying and include Columbine, Katrina and the 9/11 attacks.
More than likely, however, your moment of terror won't come in a national tragedy. It will occur in your home, in the parking lot at a strip mall or after you take cash out at a walk up ATM.
Let's hope, for your sake, when that moment comes, you still have the right to carry a firearm to defend yourself and aren't forced instead to carry the utterly useless anti-stab knife. Since, as we know, the criminal attacking you won't follow the law and won't have turned in their gun or usable knife.

Gerard Valentino is the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Treasurer and writes for the ValentinoChronicle.com.
Related Story:Coming next the U.S.A.: Knife Control?

Hold on to your Pocketknife

Posted: June 09, 20098:40 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is proposing a new definition that could be used to eliminate 8 of 10 legal pocketknives in the United States right now, according to activists who are gearing up to fight the plan.
The federal bureaucracy is accepting comments – written only – that must be received by June 21 before its planned changes could become final, but Doug Ritter of KnifeRights.org, said the implications of the decision would be far-reaching, since many state and federal agencies depend on the agency's definitions to determine what is legal in the United States.
For a long time, those switchblades that have long stiletto blades that are spring-ejected powerfully from the side or end of the handle have been illegal in the United States, but now a review by the agency of its own approval in 2008 of a particular type of knife for import is raising serious alarms. Ritter said the effect of the proposed change would be that the new design in knives, many of which contain a tiny spring to help the user pull open the blade and lock it into position, would be classified alongside those true weapons where the user just presses a button and the blade is ejected. "They are saying that any knife that you can open quickly or any knife that you can open with one hand is therefore a switchblade," Ritter told WND. On his organization's website there are suggested letters for consumers to reproduce and dispatch to both the Customs agency as well as their members of Congress over the issue. Ritter suggested that up to 80 percent of the pocketknives sold in America today either are one-handed opening knives or so-called assisted opening knives – and they all suddenly would be classified as illegal switchblades.
The agency change came in a case involving a knife called the "VanHoy Assist," whose importers were represented in a request for affirmation of its legality by a San Francisco law firm. Such determinations are not unusual since an importer does not want to have a shipment of products sitting on a ship waiting for unloading only to have a federal agent call them illegal. The knives first were approved by the agency in 2008. But only a few weeks ago, Frederick McCray of the agency's Intellectual Property Rights and Restricted Merchandise Branch did a review. "This is in reference to Headquarters Ruling Letter ('HQ') H032255, dated August 12, 2008, which concerned the admissibility of the 'VanHoy Assist,' a 'release-assisted' knife described below, pursuant to the Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1241, et seq.
In the referenced ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (hereinafter 'CBP') determined that the knives at issue were admissible into the United States pursuant to the Switchblade Knife Act. We have reconsidered the rationale of, and the admissibility determination made in HQ H032255 and found both to be in error. For the reasons set forth below, we hereby revoke HQ H032255," the letter said. That could mean headaches for the knife industry, Ritter said."Customs," continued Ritter, "is the only place where the switchblade is interpreted in various rulings. Whenever a federal, state, or local jurisdiction is looking at what a switchblade is, whenever there's a court case or whatever … they will look to the feds." He said the change came after the incoming administration of President Barack Obama reassigned some managers at the agency. "What we do know is when the incoming administration reshuffled assignments at Customs, it moved the responsibility for knives and switchblades from one organization with Customs to a new organization," he said. "That group has, as far we can tell, virtually no experiences, background or anything with knives." Officials with Customs told WND that they do not comment on issues during an open comment period, such as going on for the regulation change right now. "We do not comment on pending proposals for changes in our rulings under 19 USC 1625. We are in the comment period and we will carefully weigh the comments that we receive before deciding whether to proceed to a final decision," the prepared statement e-mailed to WND said. Ritter said the reason for the change isn't clear, "but certainly this administration is no friend to things like knives and guns," he said. A successful campaign to change the definition would mean thousands would be out of work in the knife industry, and the impact would have far-reaching effects. For example, if someone would be caught with a newly-illegal "pocketknife," would the resulting charges be structured to allege that person was dangerous or had an illegal weapon, and how would that change the defendant's right to own a firearm, he wondered. "If this law were to pass and you cross the state line with a folder (pocketknife) in your pocket, it would be a federal felony," he said. In reality, pocketknives are tools, he said. "Certainly they can be used as a weapon." But so could a screw driver or other hand tools. He said the proposal, which puts pocketknives in the classification of switchblades – described by a Senate committee as "almost exclusively the weapon of the thug and the delinquent" – isn't fair. "There are 40 million people in America walking around with pocketknives in their pocket," he said. Further, the majority of crimes committed with knives are done with the "lowly kitchen knife," he said. According to Ritter's website, the proposed revocation of the approval for "assisted opening knives," would impact "most other pocketknives, even simple old-fashioned slip-joints."

Obama's Anti-gun Record

Obama's Anti-gun Record
Barack Obama supports handgun registration and licensing...

I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree. I do not object to the lawful use and ownership of firearms, but I do think it is entirely it appropriate for the state to monitor it. Too many of these guns end up in the hands of criminals even though they were originally purchased by people who did not have a felony. I'll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training. [Chicago Defender, 7/5/01] --- http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2007/12/ and more...
The package closes the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card loopholes which resulted in the shooting out in Melrose Park. We're eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family,' Obama said. 'We're limiting handgun sales to one a month. We're calling for handgun registration. It's very hard right now to track whether or not a felon has turned in his weapons or if he has a FOID card because we don't know how many weapons he has purchased. [Chicago Defender, 2/20/01] --- http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2007/12/
Opposes civilian concealed carry
I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. --- Mendell, David, "From Promise to Power" (2007), p. 251.
I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations. --- Pittsburg Tribune-Review (April 2, 2008).
[Obama] backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.
"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said. --- http://www.icadp.org/page236.html (Citing David Mendel, Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004)
Opposes possession of most semi-automatic rifles
Obama has stated the government needs to permanently reinstate an "assault weapons" ban.(Obama Calls for Permanent Assault Weapons Ban to Combat Inner-City Violence, Associated Press [via Fox News] [July 15, 2007] and http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html)(McCain voted against the 1994 crime bill that contained an "assault weapons" ban [see the latter link].)
Voted for a federal ban on most military surplus ammo
Voted in 2005 to classify all Full Metal Jacket ammo in the following calibers as armor-piercing (since they are capable both of being fired from a handgun and of penetrating Kevlar bullet-resistant vests):
223 Remington
308 Winchester
Soviet 7.62x39
Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217
Opposes protecting firearms manufacturers from lawsuits due to the misuse of their products.
In July, 2005 Obama voted against S. 397 that passed by a wide margin (65-31) and became law in October, 2005. This act prohibits "civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others."
Probably supports local handgun bans
The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." --- http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/34/ (Citing James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07). (See http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller for background on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, before the Supreme Court, that will decide the constitutionality of a civilian handgun ban in Washington, D.C.)
Opposed the nomination of Supreme Court justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Recent Supreme Court justices John G. Roberts Jr. and href="http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/SupremeCourt/SCAlito.html">Samuel A. Alito Jr. were instrumental to a favorable Second Amendment ruling in the Heller case mentioned above. Obama voted against the nomination of Roberts and Alito. (McCain voted for the nomination of both justices.) (Roberts' roll call vote, Alito's roll call vote)

Wake Up America

This is scary

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your
bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear,
you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken
into your house and are moving your way. With your heart
pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your
shotgun.. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch
toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the
intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the
shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the
front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and
the few That are privately owned are so stringently
regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never
registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second
burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if
that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be
out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentrik
vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the
article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type
pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The
national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and
he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that
your home has been burglarized several times in the past and
that you've been critical of local police for their lack
of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the
injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint apicture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison
This case really happened!
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
Updated information on the case can be found here -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm>

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly
reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons
and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms
except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down
the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smokecleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle. Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law
into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars. When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Gun Control

GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

0A
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELA TED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET..

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!

We all know guns don't kill people....people do!