It looks as if a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates exists after all --
but not the one gun-control crusaders claim.
According to 2009 data, more guns mean fewer murders.
The FBI's preliminary 2009 crime report shows that murders from January to June 2009 fell 10 percent from the same period in 2008.
Granted, correlation doesn't always equal causation, but the number of privately owned guns rose in 2009 by about 2 percent. During the first six months of last year, national instant background checks jumped by 24.5 percent over the first six months of 2008.
According to one gun store owner, the problem, even amid the economic downturn, hasn't been keeping customers; it's been keeping up with customers. "For most of the year we couldn't even find guns to sell," says Kevin Miller of K&D Gunsmithing in San Bernardino, California. "The manufacturers don't have guns. They say sales are so high in the United States they can't keep up." Indeed, gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger, & Co. reported that first quarter 2009 production skyrocketed by 69.3 percent over first quarter 2008 levels. The most popular guns purchased were those most commonly used for self defense.
Hmm, gun ownership translating into personal safety and lower crime rates. Maybe our Founding Fathers were onto something after all.
To Keep and Bear Arms
Late last month, two men wearing masks broke into the home of a family in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the wee hours of the morning.
Upon hearing the noise, the owner of the home grabbed his gun and made his way towards the intruders. Upon confrontation, both parties exchanged fire. One of the attackers was hit and killed while his partner fled the scene.
The ensuing investigation by the Corpus Christi Police Department revealed "an occupant, a resident, defending his home," according to Lt. Isaac Valencia, who further stated, "If you apply the Castle [doctrine], you have a right to defend your home." And, as noted in the previous story, gun owners do just that.
THE PATRIOT POST
FRIDAY, 08 JANUARY 10
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
- Leo Rugiens