•    Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
•    Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
•    Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

•    Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Visit www.ontheissues.org for these and more Pelosi voting bullet-points.

This is a very important issue for many U.S. citizens.  Guns can be dangerous, but so can their absence.  Many see responsible gun ownership as a last resort security measure against invading forces, foreign or domestic.  For these people, it’s silly to even entertain giving up their arms.  The picture above represents history’s worse case scenarios, a gross exageration of our current state.  Still it must be admitted that criminals would rather the government to disarm law abiding citizens, hence there is a pragmatic argument for citizen armament that cannot be ignore.  After all, criminals don’t register their guns or use trigger-locks.  So who are these laws really written for, and why?

Greater gun restrictions imposed upon law abiding citizens is seen as a violation of a basic Constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment, which says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  Some say the encroaching gun legislation passed over the last few decades is nothing less than infringements.

I have even heard it argued that one prime reason why our mainland soil was not invaded in WII was because it was well known that America was (and is) heavily armed.  (Unfortunately they did bomb Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.)  This is a sensitive subject for many who differ greatly with personal opinions and experiences.  But the sad truth is that armament as a security cannot be ignored, and modern legislation is feared to be paving a path to full disarmament.  For disarmament to make sense we would have to live in a world where physical violence was not witnessed on such a grand scale daily.  Until that day comes, free Americans would rather keep their guns.

Second Amendment Foundation founder says “They imposed registration of semi-autos in Pelosi’s California and it led to a ban, but it certainly didn’t disarm criminals, like the convicted felon who killed four Oakland police officers last month. We know from Holder that the Obama administration wants to renew the nationwide ban on such firearms, but that won’t prevent crime, either.” Canada Free Press

In June 2006 she voted NO on a bill “to adopt an amendment that prevents funds in the Commerce Department FY2007 Appropriation bill from being used to enforce a law requiring guns be sold with locks on guns.” (read summary of bill at Project Vote Smart)  This means, in other words, she was okay with funds from the Commerce Department FY bill being used to enforce gun legislation, a dishonest practice she condemned a year prior (video).  The bill did pass.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has a reputation for saying one thing and doing another- or, more accurately today- doing one thing then saying another.

She has voted for practically every war appropriation bill, despite the fact that she didn’t vote to authorize Bush to go to war in October 2002.  Thousand of her constituents were ignored the day after the Iraq war was launched as she declared support for the President’s actions.  In less than a year after the 2002 vote, she voted for a $17 billion bill, which included a couple-of-billion dollars for Israel, of course.

She also voted for the Patriot Act, saying, “We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the President in the fight against terrorism.”  She should have said “I” instead of “we”, as she was one of the very few who knew about the wireless surveillance carried out by the Bush administration in 2004.  The rest of San Francisco was kept in the dark with the rest of America.  Not to mention FISA, which gave the telecommunications industry immunity from civil suits.

Today she preaches heavily that Iraq was a mistake and voted to reduce troops.  Her focus now when she uses her sway in Congress as House Speaker is to heavily fund the war in Afghanistan.  The most recent example being a $106 billion bill, legislation that included billions for the IMF, a fact that dissuaded other’s in Congress from supporting it.  The bill passed (in the House) nevertheless.

Pelosi favors our current brand of “globalization”, a fact she made clear when she voted for NAFTA and a number of other “free trade” agreements over the years.  By now, most are aware that the trade agreements have motives that are juxtaposed to what their titles imply.  She did vote against CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) but only as a publicity stunt for her constituents.  Apparent considering she refrained from using her sway to ensure the bill wouldn’t pass- a practice she’s most fond of otherwise.

Her actions are highly suspect.  It is well known that she knows how to play the game of politics, but for most Americans politics is not a game.  It dwells outside capitalism and sporting events.  We need serious representatives.  There are plenty of those who can play the media and therefore market themselves well when needed for a popularity boost.  But voting records don’t lie.

With the right information campaign Pelosi’s policies will become transparent, despite her clever speeches that conveniently leave out past digressions from freedom and liberty.  We are not safer do to these measures.  In fact, our sovereignty is at stake here.  We haven’t even begun to talk about healthcare, or tax cuts for the wealthy, or agriculture subsidies, or privatization of parks, or refusing to support gay marriage (yeah, she’s representing San Francisco!), her $25 million non-union vineyard (although she received the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Union), or … well, you get the picture.