During a Sun News Network segment on guns, Canadian anchor Brian Lilley issued a warning to Americans: “Registration will lead to confiscation. And if you don’t believe me, just look at what’s happened here.”

One of the gun-control proposals put forth in America is a national database for all firearms to track the movement and sale of weapons. If this comes to fruition, Lilley argues, it will lead to confiscation. He then proceeds to discuss what happened in Canada with their national long-gun registry, which ultimately led to law abiding citizens having their weapons confiscated.

Watch Lilley’s entire message to Americans below:

H/T: The Blaze

During the State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will discuss the issue of gun control, including proposals for an assault weapons ban and universal background checks. He will speak not just to a host of sympathetic Democratic lawmakers, however, but to numerous victims of gun violence as well.

This year, Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., is leading an effort to persuade lawmakers to give their guest passes to victims of gun violence. Attending the president’s address will be family members of victims in some of the nation’s deadliest mass shootings, including Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tucson and Newtown.

Each member of Congress is entitled to one guest ticket for the State of the Union. The White House and Members of congressional leadership get additional guest passes. […]

No Republican members have announced any gun violence victims as their guests to date. According to Langevin’s office, the following Democrats are participating so far:

1. Jim Langevin (RI-2) 2. Keith Ellison (MN-5) 3. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4) 4. David Cicilline (RI-1) 5. Lois Frankel (FL-22) 6. Gloria Negrete-McLeod (CA-35) 7. Ed Perlmutter (CO-7) 8. Janice Hahn (CA-44) 9. Bobby Scott (VA-3) 10. Brad Schneider (IL-10) 11. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) 12. Elizabeth Esty (CT-5) 13. Mike Thompson (CA-5) 14. Jim Himes (CT-4) 15. Tammy Duckworth (IL-8) 16. Diana DeGette (CO-1) 17. Krysten Sinema (AZ-9) 18. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9) 19. Nancy Pelosi (CA-12) 20. Chris Van Hollen (MD-8) 21. Lujan Grisham (NM-1) 22. Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)

Bringing victims of gun violence as guests serves as an emotional and symbolic reminder of the need for the president’s gun-control proposals. The move is hardly surprising, however—the Democrats’ strategy all along has been to make the emotional case for gun control to convince their colleagues and the public that passing more legislation is the right thing to do, regardless of the facts.

Thanks to the FDA’s menu labeling provision in ObamaCare, which targets restaurant chains and grocery stores, consumers may soon have to pay a little more at the checkout counter.

The proposed regulation would require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad bars and food bars, soups and bakery items. Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at the Food Marketing Institute, said testing foods for nutritional data will require either expensive software or even more costly off-site laboratory assessments.

Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: "If you get it wrong, it's a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines."

The proposed labeling requirement is meant to “aid consumers in selecting more healthful diets,” but according to Lieberman, “the evidence that menu labeling has any significant impact on public health is scant” and “no study shows any link to reduction of obesity rates.” Considering it will cost the grocery industry more than $1 billion to implement the regulation —it’s clear that by expanding menu labeling to include grocery stores, the FDA has gone too far.  

Townhall had the opportunity to sit down with representatives from the Food Marketing Institute and the American Pizza Community in November to discuss the impact the menu labeling regulation will have on their respective industries. FMI’s Director of Government Relations Robert Rosado explained that given the already high commodity and energy prices facing the grocery industry, the internalization of all the costs has gone as far as it can. In other words, this will mean higher prices for consumers, layoffs, stores scaling back their offerings or having to close altogether.

Moreover, in the FDA’s cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule, the "benefit" is left blank, he explained. “They can’t make any kind of quantitative or qualitative link to menu labeling and dietary habits [that lead] to decreased obesity or lower health costs.”  

He continued, “Unfortunately, by taking a very broad and prescriptive approach they’re [FDA] unnecessarily harming businesses and it’s a tough environment right now.” 

The FDA said Wednesday it has received hundreds of public comments on the proposal and will take them into consideration when finalizing the regulation. It is likely to be released later this spring, and the agency says it will "include a final economic analysis."

FMI is strongly urging the FDA to "exclude grocery stores unless the majority of their business is derived from restaurant-type foods." Without making these common-sense changes, however, the proposed regulation will hurt small business owners and consumers and do little, if anything, to improve public health.

It’s always refreshing to hear some common sense coming out of Hollywood.

Actress/producer Alana Stewart says she's in the minority in Hollywood when it comes to her views on gun ownership.

“It bothers me when the Hollywood elite are all so against people having guns and want rigorous gun restrictions. But I am friends with a lot of them, and most have armed guards with them or outside their homes,” Stewart told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “And I think that is hypocritical. It’s fine to have armed guards, but don’t then tell everyone else they can’t own a gun.”

Stewart doesn’t hire armed security, either. Instead, she sleeps with her gun on her bedside table.

“It is my protection and makes me feel safer. I have had to pull it out a few times when I have heard noises at night, but I’ve never had to use it,” she continued, adding that she grew up in a small Texas town and was in awe of her “fearless” grandmother who would head out into the darkness with a gun in hand when suspicious things stirred in the wee hours.

She’s also well aware of the impact violent films can have on a “disturbed person” and recognizes that new gun laws won’t change criminals’ access to and use of guns. Meanwhile, many of her colleagues are advocating for gun control—some of whom are even ‘demanding a plan’ to end gun violence despite having starred in films involving gun violence.

Milwaukee Country Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett joined Piers Morgan on his show to discuss the sheriff’s radio ad, which urges citizens to consider taking a firearms safety course because “simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.” Clarke’s point was that with officers laid off and furloughed, police might not be able to respond as quickly as needed. Thus, citizens may want to consider giving themselves another option: learn how to responsibly use a firearm for self-defense. This, of course, doesn’t fly with Morgan, a staunch gun-control advocate, or Mayor Barrett, a co-founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

In a two-against-one match-up, the gun control gang (mostly Morgan) took issue with everything from Clarke’s “Hollywood” voice in the ad, to the role of the sheriff’s office, and Clarke’s inability to give a figure on how many people in Milwaukee have defended themselves or their family at home with a gun.

Clarke stood his ground, though—particularly when he brought up the 2009 incident at the Wisconsin State Fair when Mayor Barrett was severely beaten by a man with a tire iron. “I’m sure that if you had a gun and a plan that day, the outcome would have been a little different,” Clarke said.

“Personal safety is an individual responsibility,” Clarke argued. Learning how to responsibly use a firearm is just one of the options available to citizens in a life-threatening situation when seconds count and police are only minutes away. Like he pointed out in the radio ad, “You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed or you can fight back.” 

The NRA has been unwavering in their defense of the Second Amendment throughout the gun control debate and Wayne LaPierre will continue that message before a Senate panel on Wednesday.

“Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals,” LaPierre is scheduled to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families,” he added.

The NRA released LaPierre’s opening remarks on Tuesday.

LaPierre will reaffirm the NRA’s commitment to “participate in a meaningful effort to solve these pressing problems”—keeping our kids and our streets safe—but will also reiterate that they disagree with “proposals that would only serve to burden the law-abiding,” which have failed before and will fail again.

LaPierre said the government must work to enforce gun laws already on the books, prosecute criminals who misuse firearms, and review the “full range of mental health issues” associated with gun violence. […]

He denied that universal background checks would curb crime, arguing that “criminals will never submit to them.”

“But there are things that can be done and we ask you to join with us,” LaPierre will say. “The NRA is made up of millions of Americans who support what works … the immediate protection for all — not just some — of our school children; swift, certain prosecution of criminals with guns; and fixing our broken mental health system.”

LaPierre recently slammed a section of the president’s inaugural address that referenced "absolutism". “We’re told that wanting the same technology that the criminals and our leaders keep for themselves is a form of “absolutism” and that accepting less freedom and protection for ourselves is the only “principled” way to live,” he said. “When “absolutes” are abandoned for “principles,” the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone’s graffiti and our rights and freedoms are defaced.”

Passing the most comprehensive gun legislation in the nation apparently wasn’t enough for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. According to LifeNews.com, he’s now pushing the most sweeping abortion legislation in the country, too. The so-called Reproductive health bill would make drastic changes to New York’s current abortion policy, permitting unlimited late-term abortion on demand and allowing non-physicians to perform abortions, for example. The Catholic Center outlines the extreme elements in the bill: 

• The bill would permit unlimited late-term abortion on demand. Current state law says abortions are legal in New York through 24 weeks of pregnancy (Article 125 Penal Law), but outlawed after that unless they are necessary to save a woman’s life.  This bill would repeal that law and insert a “health” exception, broadly interpreted by the courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors. It is an exception that will allow more third-trimester abortions in New York State, a policy which the public strongly disapproves.  This ignores the state’s legitimate interest in protecting the lives of fully formed children in the womb, and ignores the will of a majority of New Yorkers who oppose late-term abortion. 

 

• The bill would endanger the lives of women by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions. While current law states that only a “duly licensed physician” may perform an abortion, this bill would allow any “licensed health care practitioner” to perform the procedure prior to viability. This dangerous and extreme change clearly puts women’s health at risk, and mirrors a national abortion strategy to permit non-doctors to perform abortions due to the declining number of physicians willing to do so.

 

• The bill would preclude any future reasonable regulations of abortion. It would establish a “fundamental right of privacy” within New York State law, encompassing the right “to terminate a pregnancy,” even though the Supreme Court has rejected, numerous times, classifying abortion as a “fundamental right.”  Therefore, it is impossible to say that this legislation simply “codifies Roe vs. Wade” in New York law.  It goes well beyond Roe. The Court has said that states may regulate abortion, as long as those regulations do not place an “undue burden” on the right to an abortion. This bill says that abortion is fundamental and thus untouchable – no regulations on abortion, ever. No parental notification for minors’ abortions, no limits on taxpayer funding of abortion, no limits on late-term abortions, no informed consent for pregnant women seeking abortion. None of the commonsense regulations enacted by the vast majority of states and supported by large majorities of the public would be allowed in New York.

 

• The bill endangers the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals and other institutions. While the bill contains limited conscience protection, that protection is ambiguous and inadequate and is extended only to individual health providers who do not wish to “provide” abortions (protection that is already guaranteed by Civil Rights law.) What is not provided in the bill are protections for institutional providers, such as religious hospitals and other agencies that do not wish to be involved with abortion. The bill declares that “the state shall not discriminate” against the exercise of the fundamental right to abortion in the “provision of benefits, facilities, services or information.”  In other words, it would permit state regulators, such as the State Health Department or State Insurance Department, to require support for abortion from any agency or institution licensed or funded by the state.

 

• The bill could be used to undermine the state’s maternity programs.  In a similar way, these beneficial programs, which are working well to reduce infant mortality, could be ruled “discriminatory” for favoring childbirth over abortion, and be denied state benefits if this bill were to become law.

In gun control debates, gun rights advocates often invoke the saying, “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away,” to emphasize the absurdity and ineffectiveness of gun-free zones and the need for concealed carry in self-defense situations. Now, one Wisconsin sheriff is taking the adage seriously, telling residents they should take firearms classes because he ‘needs them in the game.’

In the radio ad, Clarke tells residents personal safety isn't a spectator sport anymore, and that "I need you in the game."

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke intones.

"You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."

Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm "so you can defend yourself until we get there."

"You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I count on you?"

Clarke clearly understands the unfortunate realities of present-day society. Police can’t be everywhere, all the time, so it’s important that citizens have the ability to defend themselves if need be. He also advocated for the arming of teachers in schools in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting.  

Surprise! President Obama completely understands how gun owners in rural America feel and he’s on their side, or something. 

President Obama says he regularly skeet shoots at Camp David and called on gun-control proponents to “do a little more listening” to gun owners in the national debate over firearms.

In an interview with The New Republic posted on Sunday Obama said that he and guests “do skeet shooting all the time” at the presidential retreat and said he understood why many rural voters were protective of their gun-ownership rights.

“Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations,” said the president. “And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."

Obama suggested that the divide over gun reform could be traced to the split between rural and urban areas and said he hoped to “bridge those gaps” in his push to stem gun violence.

“Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas,” said Obama. “And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.”

It’s as though he’s trying to paint himself as the good guy in the gun control debate by 'calling on gun-control proponents to do a little more listening to gun owners'. The only problem, of course, is that this comes after he already demonized American gun owners of all stripes every step of the way. Telling Americans he goes skeet shooting “all the time” will hardly change anyone’s mind on either side of this debate. It’s obvious he’s worried that Sen. Feinstein’s proposed legislation won’t go anywhere because of the six senators in the Democratic caucus (mainly from rural areas) that are opposed to a ban.

But going back to his actual argument—how many times must we tell the president that the Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting? It’s about defending ourselves against a tyrannical government. 

After the fiscal cliff deal was reached, House Speaker John Boehner made it very clear that he was done negotiating directly with President Obama. Not surprisingly, Boehner’s promise of a new strategy going forward has to do with regrets over how he handled the cliff negotiations.

In a private speech to the Ripon Society on Tuesday, Boehner said that he should have taken a different course after the November election by immediately demanding that the Senate produce a bill to avert the worst parts of a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that were due to hit on Jan. 1.

Instead, Boehner delivered a formal speech at the Capitol on the day after President Obama won a second term, in which he offered a major Republican concession – new tax revenue as part of a broader fiscal deal.

“Looking back, what I should have done the day after the election was to make it clear the House has passed a bill to extend all of the current tax rates, the House has passed a bill to replace the sequester with cuts in mandatory spending, and the Senate ought to do its work,” Boehner said. “We’re ready, able and willing to work with the Senate as soon as they produce a bill. It should have been what I said. You know, again, hindsight is 20-20.”

Boehner was also forthright about the problems his strategy caused within the party. From House Republicans voting 151-85 against the fiscal cliff deal to having 12 Republican defections during his reelection vote as Speaker of the House—the division was evident.

“You have no idea the suspicions and the undercurrents that it caused, frankly, a lot of my members,” Boehner said of his negotiations with Obama. “It really has, in fact, caused somewhat of a breach that I’ve been in the middle of trying to repair.”

Boehner attributed the suspicions to the younger members in the Republican ranks who are not familiar with his voting record in the years before he took the Speaker’s gavel.