Rifle used by 5-yr.old Boy in Death of Sister

2 yr old "Dead" in the name of 2nd amendment right

A 5-year-old Kentucky boy was using a rifle made for children by Keystone Sporting Arms when police say shot and killed his 2 year old sister. The boy commonly used the .22-caliber "Crickett" kids rifle which he received as a gift last year, for hunting with his father.

Police say they were called to the family's home in Burkesville, Ky. after the Keystone Sporting Arms rifle went off and hit 2-year-old Caroline Sparks in the chest around 1 p.m. Tuesday, She later died at Cumberland County Hospital. no charges were yet filed, but a grand jury could have the final say. In Kentucky there are laws dealing with handguns and kids, but not for the Keystone Sporting Arms rifle used in this incident.

"Crickett" rifles are made by, Keystone Sporting Arms, are marketed as "My First Rifle" on the Pennsylvania manufacturer's website. Trooper Billy Gregory, "the gun used in the incident was kept in a corner of the house and the family did not realize that a shell had been left in it".

Investigation into the shooting is ongoing and could take weeks or even months, police say. If the reputable Keystone Sporting Arms existed before selling Guns to our children they can no longer be found on the Internet. Just like the National Rifle association went in silence after the Sandy Hook shooting Keystone Sporting Arms have removed themselves from the web and are no longer available for comment. The people who defend selling Guns and marketing kids rifle  to children criminals and may even make those weapons available to those who may harm our Nation cannot defend those 2nd amendment rights when the most vulnerable among us is armed with one of their weapons.

Our children are now expendable in the name of our 2nd amendment right, weather they are in a school in Sandy Hook, a movie Theater or a family home in Burkesville Kentucky while a mother left the area where the kids were playing to the Porch.

Mitt Romney"s Flips and Flops the, "Blunt Amendment"

The White House policy requires employers to include contraception in their employees’ healthcare plans without charging a co-pay or deductible, but exempts churches and houses of worship. Religious-affiliated employers such as Catholic hospitals would not have to directly cover birth control in their healthcare plans, but their employees could still obtain it, without a co-pay, from their respective insurance companies.

The Blunt Amendment Creates a Huge Loophole, Allowing Employers and Plans to Use Religious or Moral Convictions to Eliminate Critical Health Care Services

The Blunt Amendment allows employers and insurance companies to refuse coverage of any health care service required under the new health care law based on undefined “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”  This creates a huge loophole in the new health care law’s coverage requirements.  For example, any corporation whose CEO opposes contraception based on his “moral convictions” could deny all coverage of contraception or any other service to the company’s employees.  Even more disturbing, a CEO’s view of “morality” could potentially include concern for the cost of a particular benefit.  Such broad, undefined refusals would result in millions of individuals losing vital health service coverage.

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/blunt_amendment_fact_sheet_march_2012.pdf

Opponents of the Blunt amendment pointed out that the bill not only would have allowed employers to cherry-pick women's health care options based on moral beliefs, but it also would have rolled back some of the basic anti-discrimination protections in the Affordable Care Act. For instance, under the amendment, an employer could refuse to cover things like HIV/AIDS screenings, prenatal care for single mothers, mammograms, vaccinations for children and even screenings for diabetes based on objections to a perceived immoral lifestyle.

Flop!
“I’m not for the bill (the blunt amendment), but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there,” Romney answered.

Flip!

 “Of course, I support the Blunt amendment".

Flop!

“I didn't understand his question,” Romney said on a Boston radio show later Wednesday. “Of course, I support the Blunt amendment.” And in a statement Thursday, Romney praised senators who backed the measure.

Romney: You know, I made it very clear when I was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos in a debate a while ago.



 Contraception is working just fine, let’s just leave it alone.

Republicans contend that the Blunt amendment, which is expected to come up for a vote in the Senate on Thursday, would reverse the national health-care law’s requirement that all employers, including religious-affiliated institutions, provide health coverage that includes contraceptive care at no co-pay cost to employees.

 “Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith.”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), came out in support of the measure Wednesday. But most national Democrats have hammered Republicans over the amendment, arguing that it would give employers broad discretion to deny their employees any type of coverage by citing the conscience exception