Such may be the case with radio talk show host Michael Savage, re. The Savage Nation. If you are not familiar with Savage’s ongoing battle with the United Kingdom, it may be because the media and most bloggers, radio talk show hosts and virtually every person who makes a living exercising their freedom of speech have refused to cover Savage’s story.

Savage has been banned from visiting the U.K. because he was placed on a list with murderers and terrorist because of being accused of saying bad things that might incite “intercommunity violence”. World Net Daily reports it this way.

In a legal complaint against Smith, Savage noted the home secretary’s office said in a press release that the “controversial daily radio host” is “considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence.”

Smith was the head of the U.K.’s Home Office who placed Savage on that list. Savage has since been embroiled in a legal battle to clear his name. The new government of the U.K. announced that they will leave Savage on the list.

Much of this is very troubling and should tatter the fabric of every person who embraces liberty – in this instance, freedom of speech. Who cares which side of the aisle Savage might sit on? Why should those of us who adore liberty care if Savage is a libertarian, a republican, a conservative, a liberal, black, white, green or purple? What has happened to Michael Savage in the U.K. shows us the evil that exists in the world and within the boundaries of one of our greatest democratic allies.

Why hasn’t American Media jumped to help Savage? Should it really matter? Savage walks his own walk and as often as he might ruffle your feathers, he speaks his mind. Love him or hate him, he loves liberty, as we all should.

Savage is no murderer! He’s not a terrorist either! The U.K. has cherry-picked fragments of things Savage has said in order to demonize the man and get his name on this famed list. But why? Once again, World Net Daily gives us extremely troubling evidence that perhaps Savage has become a victim of the U.K.’s use of political correctness to protect themselves from appearing bigoted toward Muslims.

Savage has documented his battle over the U.K. ban in his book “Banned in Britain,” which includes official correspondence, released under the U.K.’s freedom of information law, that reveals a decision was made at the highest level of government to use his name to provide “balance” to a “least wanted” list dominated by Muslim extremists.

“We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists,” reads a draft recommendation, marked “Restricted,” that was obtained as part of Savage’s libel lawsuit against the government and Smith…..

Can this be true? Did Savage become the target of political correctness in which he was added to a list of banned people in order not to make the list contain only Islamic names? Think about that for a moment. Is this the equivalent of adding a Catholic, a Jew and a Protestant to the list of terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center, in order that this list not include all Muslim extremists? Is this also a matter of the U.K. showing it’s fear of retribution by their own Islamic communities should they put out a list “dominated by Muslim extremists”?

Regardless of how extraordinary all of this has become for Savage, the most perplexing matter of contention, is the lack of action from Savage’s fellow media people who should be climbing the walls to clear this man’s name. This same savage act of barbarism to destroy our inalienable rights can just as easily be cast upon any one of us who use the pen or speak with words.

It matters not whether you like or dislike Savage. The man is unique and speaks from his heart. This certainly doesn’t make him a terrorist who incites violence in other people. Is there no longer responsibility of self, that we simply blame others for what we choose to do?

I could compile quite a list of people who write and talk that I dislike immensely and some I disagree with but it is far from my thoughts that I would seek to shut them up or ban them from coming to my town. Regardless of who the person is, we should never squander our liberties for personal or political reasons.

I am just a little guy in the big scheme of Media but it is my desire that Michael Savage can get this issue resolved. I believe it would have been concluded months ago, had Americans, including our own Secretary of State, Congress and Media voiced outrage toward the United Kingdom for conducting acts so antithetical to the liberties Americans and Brits died to protect.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

But liberty comes with responsibility, the restraint of exploiting our rights over those of others.

Our own Declaration of Independence tells us the truth of liberty is self-evident. In the struggle for independence, these brave people, as penned by Thomas Jefferson, understood that under the tyranny of King George III, some people were created more equal than others and that any liberties were those granted by the King. This stood in stark contrast to the written Word of God.

Jefferson wrote that “We hold these truths to be self-evident“, those truths being as I’ve described above, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What is all too often lost in the recitation of the above, most common phrase from the Declaration of Independence, is Jefferson’s explanation of how to protect these rights. He further goes on to write that, “Governments are instituted among Men, driving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” He says that when any government “becomes destructive” of these rights, it’s the right of the people to fix it, even to the point of installing a new government, such as was the intent of seeking independence from England.

When our society progresses away from God and good sound morals, the entire foundation of the Declaration and Constitution, gets shaken, can crumble and fall down. And therein lies the ultimate destruction of individual Liberty.

God has blessed us with some of the most incredible beauty that can be found in the outdoors. I was raised in the country and find much peace and happiness in going to the woods, however the only lasting peace and happiness comes from within, that which is occupied by the love of God.

As much as I love to hunt and fish and just be in the outdoors, that Liberty does not trump another man’s Creator-endowed right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My understanding of rights, shows me to respect the rights of others as much as my own.

I read somewhere a person’s “signature” they used on a message board. It went something like this: “The biggest threat to the outdoor sportsman is the outdoor sportsman”. It was quite ironic, as I recall, that the person using this signature seemed bent on being the dictator of which rights shall be bestowed on his fellow sportsmen, while chastising anyone who dared question his authority.

As the title of this piece reads, liberty is not this man’s or any other man’s to give or to take. To assume such authority it must be assumed that this person consider himself either above the power of the Creator or that they’ve “progressed” to a point that God is no longer or never was any part of their life. Quite unfortunate for them and the rest of us, I’d say.

It is a most arduous burden for some to tolerate the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” of others and perhaps that task remains insurmountable without individual direction from God. Instead of illustrating the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights in our behavior, we too often choose to dictate which liberties can be exercised.

Let me explain. Some fishermen believe that employing the use of “catch and release” in their favorite pastime, is a good way to preserve and conserve the species for the present into the future. I take no issue with that. If we “illustrate the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights”, this fisherman who believes in his notion that such a practice is best, should exercise his rights and promote his epiphany in every positive way he can and support it with as much scientific facts as there are available.

When we “choose to dictate which liberties”, it takes on a very different tone. We can never accomplish what is right through negative behavior. Instead of the positive promotion of catch-and-release fishing, the tyrant rather opts to demonize those who choose to catch, keep and eat the fish they caught, even to the point of fighting for laws to prohibit such activity.

If catch-and-release fishing is the answer to all our conservation concerns, then it will stand firmly on its own merits. Dictating rights, steals from others and tells the rest of us that this person knows nothing of which they speak and are only interested in usurping others’ rights.

But it’s not just fishing. This general negative, dictatorial, rights-snatching behavior carries over into every aspect of our lives.

It is troubling to me that the President of a country, whose Declaration of Independence clearly states that it is self-evident, that our Rights are granted by our Creator, proclaims to the world that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. Taking God and the Liberty he endowed us all with, out of our lives, our society and our government, is a dangerous direction we should not travel.

I do not have the right to determine who gets rights and who doesn’t. As a matter of fact no man on this earth has that right, although they have taken it. I may not like what someone with opposing views has to say but it is far from me to try to shut them up.

Exercise you God-given Liberties and revel in them. Taking others away does nothing to protect yours and will eventually end yours.

Tom Remington

The list is endless and this has all taken place within the first four months of his presidency. Wake up America. Our nation has been hijacked by a person now proud to be a Muslim. What should we expect next in his bag of hopenchange tricks?

Yes, millions of people could die under the rule of Barack Obama! This morning I read a headline in a lefty newspaper that read, “As many as 1,000 wolves could be killed!” This all because it was decided to remove federal protection of the wolf.

This morning, I’m claiming that millions of people, worldwide, could die while Barack Obama is in office. My reasoning is that he is a fascist dictator and like Hitler, millions of people died.

And speaking of Hitler. I have been reading Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism. I highly recommend it but unfortunately too few will read it because they will automatically reach conclusions just by the title. While the title grabs your attention, the book isn’t quite what you might think it is. It is very historical. In it you will discover America’s birth of fascism, the journey of the metamorphosis of fascism through the years and what role it plays in our lives today.

Toward the end of the book I was reading about how Hitler transformed Germany into what it became. Here’s what Goldberg said.

“Under the progressives, the Christian God had been transformed into the God of lower food prices. Under the Nazis, the Christian God would be transformed into an Aryan SS officer with Hitler his right hand. The so-called German Christian pastors preached that “just as Jesus liberated mankind from sin and hell, so Hitler saves the German Volk from decay.” In April 1933 the Nazi Congress of German Christians pronounced that all churches should catechize that “God has created me a German; Germanism is a gift of God. God wills that I fight for Germany. War service in no way injures the Christian conscience, but is obedience to God.”

“In 1935 mandatory prayer in school was abolished, and in 1938 carols and Nativity plays were banned entirely. By 1941 religious instruction for children fourteen years and up had been abolished altogether, and Jacobinism reigned supreme. A Hitler Youth song rang out from the campfires”

What I opted to do with the Hitler Youth song was to replace two names that appear in it. You’ll catch on.

We are the happy Obama Youth;
We have no need for Christian virtue;
For Barack Obama is our intercessor
And our redeemer.
No priest, no evil one
Can keep us
From feeling like Obama’s children.
No Christ do we follow, but Rahm Emanuel!
Away with the incense and holy water pots.

The orphans in Germany were given a song to sing at Christmas time, a song once familiar here in America but with each passing year, as our society continues it’s bent on ridding this country of any reference to God, this carol too will be banned. Hitler changed the lyrics to the song as I will change them again to fit the moment.

Silent night! Holy night! All is calm, all is bright,
Only Obama steadfast in fight,
Watches o’er America by day and night,
Always caring for us.

Before you call me a wing nut, or one of Napolitano’s feared right wing extremists, review your history and then be honest with yourself and compare this all to the direction this country is headed. Some of us don’t like it and fear for our future. On the other hand, you might just like it. Many Germans did.

Tom Remington

Last year the Bush administration decided to list the polar bear as a species that is threatened – meaning that there is a possibility that if we don’t pay close attention to this animal, certain circumstances could put the bear in danger of going extinct. We don’t want that but was it necessary?

I guess it depends on whose science we opt to use and how much politicking comes into play. It appears that the Bush administration attempted to play politics instead of opting for science and fighting the battle based on that.

After the listing was announced, the Bush people tried to pull a double whammy political back 2 and one half somersault. They crafted an executive order that said lawsuits couldn’t be filed to stop energy production, or any other carbon emitting project, based on perceived global warming threats to polar bears. This of course makes about as much sense as pouring gasoline on a fire. The reason Bush and Kempthorne claimed for listing the polar bear was because of shrinking Arctic ice caused by global warming. Politics as usual.

Now with Obama in office and having recently overturned that sneaky little attempt by Kempthorne to prevent lawsuits, the door has been left wide open, welcoming with open arms any and every lawsuit known to mankind that might have an affect on polar bears. How creative can you get?

Hugh Hewitt seems to think that some in the media are beginning to catch on that environmentalists are very serious when they claim that they will regulate energy and control their standard of environmental issues by using the ESA, along with the polar bear as the ultimate weapon.

Hewitt is a far more glass-half-full kind of guy than I am. I don’t think the media is catching on at all but I completely agree with him and have been yelling about this for some time, that environmentalists have discovered what a useful and powerful tool the ESA has become.

In his article at TownHall yesterday, Hewitt lays some of the blame on industries that are staring down the barrel of environmental restrictions that will force the price of energy through the roof or put them out of business. The industries’ “hear no evil, see no evil”, as he puts it, approach to dealing with this issue, has left control in the hands the environmentalists’ lawyers who will decide how much stifling of economic expansion and energy development will occur.

Instead it has ceded the legal initiative to the very capable lawyers at the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups, and the rollout of the prevent-global-warming-via-the-ESA strategy is beginning. The impact on energy production across the U.S. will be to sharply curtail new exploration and production and to greatly increase the cost of existing production. Every time a federal permit is proposed that will facilitate energy production –or any carbon-releasing activity for that matter– environmental activists will argue that an ESA mandated permitting process is required.

In past dealings with the federal government on ESA issues, it appears that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does whatever it wishes and then stands back and lets the chips fall where they may. In my opinion, the mistake the Bush administration made in dealing with the polar bear was that it didn’t present its case scientifically and staunchly support that decision with the science they used. They decided to play games. This leaves us with tons of questions. What was the determining factor, politics or science? Does USFWS even know what they are doing? Did they ever really have any intention of protecting the polar bear? Are they deliberately playing into the hands of the environmentalists? Or, perhaps they thought it would be fun to leave the next administration the headache to deal with?

Playing stupid games with the ESA and then ignorantly thinking a little executive order here and there will make everybody happy, just has never made much sense to me. Look at the USFWS’ track record with other ESA issues, like the wolf. They keep trying to convince people they want to remove the wolf from ESA protection but they have employed some real boneheaded maneuvers in that endeavor and still the wolf remains protected and the people suffer.

USFWS seems either unwilling or incapable of defending its positions on ESA with science – at least to a point that any of us feel they have deep convictions about any of it. The feds have had ample opportunities to rabidly present their scientific evidence in the courts – God knows we spend enough money fighting lawsuits – but all we’ve seen of late is a tail-between-the-legs approach. Why should we believe the feds will do much more than declare a species in trouble or recovered and then let the courts sort it all out.

This is one of the problems we face with the ESA. Government intrusion hurts business, the economy, free enterprise all the way down to the individual landowner. Administering the ESA is an intrusion of government to begin with but now, environmentalists pull the strings because they have the money to spend on court cases and those of us taking it on the chin either will not fight it or don’t have the means.

Last week I made this statement in regards to the U.S. Senate’s vote to overturn the Bush administration’s restrictions on lawsuits to stop energy development based on loss of polar bear sea ice caused by global warming.

What essentially has happened is that the polar bear is now the largest, most powerful instrument that has ever existed and it lies at the disposal of the environmental community.

If Hugh Hewitt is correct, then the Center for Biological Diversity now is in near complete control over the Endangered Species Act and the polar bear weapon to effectively have its way with our economy, energy development and economic growth.

The federal government is content to let their policies be decided in court to the highest bidders leaving the people in some sort of economic limbo, quite powerless.

What was once a Congressional act to save a few plants and animals has grown into a powerful instrument being used for just about everything except its original intention. And yet, any suggestion to amend the ESA creates a definitive uproar in opposition. Now it is clear why. Those controlling the ESA have a lot of power and with that power they control you and me. Politics as usual.

Tom Remington

Recently, President Obama told Congressional republican leaders to stop listening to Rush so that they could get something done. In all seriousness, is President Obama so insecure that he fears Rush Limbaugh? Granted Rush is a powerful man with a large following but does anyone think he can lead a junta against the president and his party? Or that he would even want to?

It all makes little sense to me.

But now it has gone a bit beyond the ordinary. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is circulating a petition among their members with the intent of sending a message to Rush Limbaugh.

We need every grassroots Democrat to show Rush Limbaugh and all of the Republicans what they’re up against if they start attacking President Obama and Democrats who are working to end the failed GOP policies of the last eight years.

Well, okay! If this is how the DCCC wants to spend their time, there is not much difference in opposing this petition as there is in opposing Rush Limbaugh. In other words, if I don’t want to listen to what Rush Limbaugh has to say, I’ll not tune in my radio to his show. Nor would I sign a petition asking him to shut up. What’s more, isn’t it hypocritical to exercise your right to free speech in order to encourage stifling free speech? Isn’t the real issue here about freedom of choice?

The petition being circulated includes a few disturbing demands which to me somewhat resemble the tactics used by dictators of the past.

Jobs, health care, our place in the world – the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed. Creating real change requires every American stand strong against Rush Limbaugh’s attacks – and all of the other partisan attacks from desperate Republicans that are on the way.

This is essentially asking Americans to bury the years of party politics, a two-party system that, while certainly not perfect, has allowed for a certain degree of checks and balances. At no time during history that I am aware, has anyone seriously called for the censorship of opposing views.

The Media Research Center is taking this action very seriously. Today I received another email asking for support as the MRC believes President Obama’s comments to republican leaders asking them to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh is a paving of the way that will lead to the demand to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

If it is, all Americans need to think long and hard about what they are considering. If it’s not then it seems only intelligent to question the time being spent fixated on one man on one radio station by not only the DCCC and the democratic party but our own President of the United States. Isn’t it a bit sophomoric to even make a comment like that?

The DCCC should look in the mirror for a moment and see that they have a right to circulate their petition. They have a right to oppose and offer counter arguments to every one of Limbaugh’s ideas. But rights and freedoms extend beyond the democrat party.

Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews and Joe the Plumber all have a right to freedom of speech. Suggesting that now someone should stop talking in order for the President to succeed is not only ridiculous, it’s dangerous.

Time for those in Washington to grow up!

Tom Remington

We shouldn’t stop at Wyoming. Let’s add Idaho and Montana to the list as well, as I’m sure several states could also be included as being shafted by the USFWS. Promises were made from the beginning, promises some said the federal government would never adhere to, had no intentions of fulfilling and couldn’t achieve if it wanted to. Yet, the USFWS got its way and dumped the unwanted wolves on the back doorsteps of thousands of citizens in the Rocky Mountain West areas.

Much of the fears and concerns predicted over 12 years ago have come to pass and each of the states waited patiently for the feds to finally delist the wolf and turn management over to the state where it legally belongs anyway.

The feds were sued by environmentalists and the USFWS turned chicken and ran from the fight, once again leaving the citizens of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho to deal with a mess they never asked for with their hands tied behind their backs.

Sen. Barrasso is right. We were double-crossed, driving a wedge deeper to widen the gap of distrust between government and the people. Some day the majority of people will figure out that agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believe they are independent. They have forgotten that they are supposed to be working for the people not for the promotion of their own special interests.

We are now entering historic times in this country, much of it the result of an out of control Congress and an administration that doesn’t know how to stop spending money. This of course affects us all and on top of that, we have citizens already struggling to pay bills, who are battling a killing machine that cares nothing about interest rates, mortgages and utility bills.

For decades these states have worked hard and spent tons of money building, protecting and managing an elk and deer population that can sustain itself. In areas these are being threatened, yet we can do nothing but sit back and watch years of hard work flushed down the drain all in the name of someone’s “experiment”.

It’s time for leadership. It’s time for all of us to step forward and say enough is enough. It’s hard enough for people to deal with the everyday financial struggles. Why should they also have to deal with animals that are destroying their only means to make a living, and threatening to destroy an elk herd that can provide much needed food for thousands of families?

The November election is approaching rapidly. I hope everyone decides to vote and when they cast that ballot, considers the circumstances we are in, the result of this Congress and the laws they and others before them have passed that have ripped from us our individual rights, threatening to do more of the same. Short of a revolution, the ballot box is the only way to effect the right kind of change.

What we have is broken. Socialism isn’t the answer. Freedom is! Dumping a $700 billion burden on us so that the “money people” can continue down the same path will do nothing good for any of us. This is your chance to do something. We have to have hope that by putting the right people in Washington, we can also change government agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Tom Remington

When I read all this malarkey, I am reminded of a parrot a co-worker of mine used to have. After work one afternoon, I went with this guy to his beach-side condominium. From previous conversations at work, I knew Dave had a parrot. He had told me some of the shenanigans this parrot, named Julio, had gotten into since becoming of member of Dave’s family. One thing I was told is that the parrot was really only loyal to one person and that happened to be Dave. He merely tolerated the rest.

I discovered, and fortunately not he hard way, that Julio was most noted for his deceptive practice of luring unsuspecting newcomers to his cage. What person would not be fascinated and immediately attracted to a beautiful green parrot, especially one that could talk – quite eloquently for a bird I might add.

As I walked in the front door, I was almost immediately greeted with, “Hello! Hello! Come here!”

I’ve not been around talking birds much in my life. I do recall one time visiting a small animal farm in which they had a myna bird, a smallish black bird that I believe is somehow related to the starling family of birds. One of the attractive things about a myna bird is its ability to mimic sounds it has heard before, much like a parrot but I think a parrot is a bit more intelligent, as you will soon discover. This myna bird happened to pick up on and seemingly enjoyed mimicking the phrase, “F&*% you!”

Julio on the other hand was suave, debonair even. He was soft spoken in his greeting of, “Hello” and “Come here!” With a smile on my face, I approached the cage stopping at about three feet away. My learned tendencies when it comes to animals, kept me from getting any closer. I guess I’ve had too many dog bites, etc. to have a great desire for closeness with animals I’m not familiar with.

“Hello! Come here! Come here!” Julio pleaded. Who could resist? This bird, even though he was just a bird, perhaps with a brain the size of a pea, could woo anyone. He had me from the first hello! (sorry)

I stepped a bit closer and for some stupid reason, perhaps because I was simply overtaken with he bird’s calmness, soft pleas and charisma, I began to stick my finger into the cage.

“Don’t do that!” Dave yelled. “The little bastard will bite the end of your finger off!”

I retracted my finger and hand and took a step back. Now that I had learned some of the truth about the bird, his pretty green colors weren’t quite so pretty anymore. I soon lost interest in Julia and turned my attention to other more important things.

Are there similarities between Julio and Barack Obama? I tell you what. You stick your hand in the cage and see if he bites.

Tom Remington

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion of the case and in his summation wrote this:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. (emphasis added)

Why is it then than the District of Columbia’s Council has approved new gun laws, they say are aimed at adhering to the Supreme Court ruling, that clearly go directly against it?

I reported yesterday about Washington, D.C.’s bold attempt at challenging the Supreme Court ruling by showing the District’s “new” gun laws that will allow for ownership of a handgun but that all guns kept in a home must be rendered inoperable, directly opposing the Court’s ruling.

USA Today reports the same thing.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks — unless there is a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” in the home.

My guess is the defiant and brazen District Council seems to think that by adding the phrase, “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm”, clears them of violating the Second Amendment right as ruled by the Supreme Court.

We know what a slippery slope is created anytime the word “reasonable” is used as pertaining to laws. In this debate of gun rights, many advocate for “reasonable” restrictions on guns yet nowhere is this reasonableness defined. And in this new regulation fabricated by the D.C. Council, what exactly is “reasonably perceived threat”? Who gets to say? And why do they think this is constitutional?

I, and thousands of others, knew that even if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of individual rights, the debate over reasonable restrictions would carry on forever. However, what seems to be lost in this majority opinion is what Justice Scalia points out in restrictions on guns. Scalia concedes that no right is unlimited. Some have taken his statement to mean that restrictions of guns should be allowed. It must be pointed out that Justice Scalia points out those restrictions after his statement and doesn’t leave open the idea that all restrictions are reasonable.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

Contrary to what some are trying to say, Scalia is not conceding that even though the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right, that restrictions, such as those being imposed on the citizens of the District of Columbia, are acceptable. On the contrary. He goes on in the above statement to spell out existing “reasonable” restrictions that should be recognized, restrictions of which most Americans have little issue with.

In the same USA Today article, it is pointed out the restrictions put on D.C. residents in applying for a permit to possess a gun. Remember, Scalia said that in the Heller case, the idea of having to license and register guns was not part of the case.

Though residents can begin applying for handgun permits this week, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.

“It depends on what your situation is — whether you owned the gun before or purchased it outside the District of Columbia,” police Chief Cathy Lanier said.

The process involves a written exam, proof of residency and good vision. Successful applicants must pay a registration fee and agree to fingerprinting and a criminal background check before obtaining a weapon.

I’m sure Mayor Fenty and others would love nothing more than the process to take years. It is unlawful to purchase a gun outside of the District of Columbia and bring it into the District. It is my understanding that there are no current federally licensed gun dealers in the District. I have seen nothing in the new laws yet that will permit the transporting of guns into the District and it is unclear whether anyone has filed applications to become a licensed dealer. Having this restriction is just as effective as banning guns altogether.

There has always been and will always be issues with what restrictions should and shouldn’t be included in being able to obtain a license to own a gun. We aren’t talking about concealed weapons here, only licensing of guns, which is in and of itself, an unconstitutional barrier to gun ownership, restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The debate will go on, there’s no doubt about that. Towns, counties, cities and states all across this nation will wage battle in the courts in attempts to define what are “reasonable” restrictions on guns. It is obvious the powers that be in the District of Columbia are not interested in accepting the Supreme Courts ruling and will drag this process out for as long as it can.

It’s time to move on.

Tom Remington

Many, particularly our young people, don’t know what Independence Day means. They simply state it as our birthday. Independence Day was the beginning of our freedom and set forth over the course of many years a series of battles, in many venues, to keep and preserve that freedom – some of those events costing the lives of brave Americans. For this, understanding patriots are grateful.

For me, this year is a special birthday for America. The U.S. Supreme Court reinforced and defined one of our basic and necessary rights – the right to keep and bear arms. This is a bright day for Americans, even the ones who disagreed with the ruling, for this ruling will prolong the rights and freedoms we all enjoy to disagree without fear of reprisals.

Too much of society attempts to focus on violence, utilizing fear tactics to convince us that guns are evil and need to be outlawed. Lost from debate is why the framers of the Constitution thought it necessary to create the Second Amendment – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

To help readers understand this, Larry Elder of Town Hall has Part 1 of “Why Do We Keep and Bear Arms?’ Mr. Elder takes us from the beginning to modern day times in what leaders of the world, including Hitler, had to say about an armed citizenry.

Elder reminds us what Thomas Paine said in 1775 about what happens when we take guns away from lawful citizens and the effect it has on criminals.

“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. … (Weakness) allures the ruffian (but) arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world. … Horrid mischief would ensue were (the good) deprived of the use of them. … The weak will become a prey to the strong.”

But perhaps a more telltale indication of the movement of our society is revealed by Elder when he quotes a 20th century political leader about gun ownership – a leader who happened to be a democrat.

On this Independence Day, I hope you will take an extra moment to reflect back on the true meaning of this day, the day we declared our independence, our freedom and what it has cost us to keep that which is so precious.

Tom Remington