While it might be apparent to those of us on the right, a Massachusetts congressman recently confirmed Democrat policy is largely based in fiction.

Unabashedly using the movie “Skyfall” and its protagonist, James Bond, as a springboard, Rep. John Tierney recently introduced the ridiculous Personalized Handgun Safety Act.

Peppered with references to the latest 007 film, he contended “we should be able to agree on gun safety measures that will make our families and communities safer.”

The crux of his bill lies in requiring gunmakers to install technological components in all firearms rendering them useless when brandished by someone other than the owner.

James Bond “escapes death” in the film, Tierney recounted, because his gun “becomes inoperable when it gets into the wrong hands.”

According to the bill’s specifications, gunmakers would be forced to adhere to the new regulations within two years and existing firearms would be retrofitted with the technology using Justice Department funds.

Nearly half of the bill’s supporters are, like Tierney, from the bastion of leftist lunacy known as Massachusetts. Unsurprisingly, none are Republicans.

Despite being notoriously unreliable in practice, such personalization software could easily result in distressing results. In the event of an armed burglary, for instance, an incapacitated gun owner would mean the rest of the household is left completely defenseless as the firearm is rendered nothing more than a scary-looking paperweight.

Touted as a means to prevent accidental deaths, this transparent attempt to further prune the Second Amendment would do nothing more than making gun ownership more expensive and less effective.

Though he seems keen on using this particular scene as legislative inspiration, Tierney has not yet stated his position on another potential killer – the Komodo dragon ultimately responsible for the villain’s death.

Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Colorado’s Secretary of state has approved language for petitions to recall Senate President John Morse and state Rep. Mike McLachian. Both democrats are from hotly contested districts and their anti-gun votes will likely cost them their seats.

Voters are also pursuing recalls for Sen Evie Hudak and state Rep. Rhonda Fields and considering filing a petition to recall governor John Hickenlooper.

Rep. Fields sponsored the very unpopular 15 round magazine limit legislation. She is notorious for her outright gun-grabbing stance on the second amendment. During the push for the anti-gun bills, Fields remarked, ”The objective is to get the guns out of the home.”

Sen. Hudak had an equally troubling public event during the democrat-pushed anti-gun effort. During a hearing on concealed carry on college campuses, Hudak told a rape victim that her attack would likely have been worse if she had tried to defend herself by carrying a concealed firearm. Then stating a now proven false statistic, Hudak argued with the rape victim “I just want to say that actually statistics are not on your side…the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them.”

Of course, the way Hudak expressed the statistic, she makes it sound as though the victims own guns were turned on them. As several news agencies have reported, Hudak contorted 1998 FBI statistics to say something they actually didn’t say at all.

Colorado voters have come together to form the Basic Freedom Defense Fund to coordinate the recall effort. Headquartered in Grand Junction, CO, the group’s website says, “The Basic Freedom Defense Fund is a non-profit dedicated to holding our elected representatives here in the state of Colorado RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE for the things they do in office, and to ensure the defense of our freedoms and civil rights.”

Colorado voters aren’t the only ones organizing. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been spending millions during the 2013 anti-gun effort and is likely to fund groups like “A Whole Lot of People for John Morse” which is hoping to defend Sen. Morse during the recall.

I have seen the light. After all these years, I now agree that it’s fruitless to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are so obviously corrupt, so clearly malevolent, so bent on hurting innocent people for their own sick gain.

No more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism.

Those first two sentences are the first two in the article. No editing, ‘taking out of context’ or other egregious acts of non-journalism. They are exactly as Mr. Perry wrote them in the Aurora Sentinal.

So who exactly is he so angry with that he feels that their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights should be discarded? Why.. it’s the NRA:

No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association.

Of course he wouldn’t wish this kind of punishment on someone like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, or the weirdo that mailed ricin to a member of Congress and a judge – no, not them. Dave wants the NRA to be stripped of due process.

Some may think the post was a joke, but dear old Dave’s own words tell it like it is when after those first two paragraphs he says, “I’m not laughing.” Well, neither is anyone else Dave.

The Boston Marathon bombings, the airplanes used in 9/11 and many black youths that are victims to crime have little to do with the NRA. The Marathon morons reportedly hollowed-out fireworks for their radical Islamist-fueled jihad. The 9-11 terrorist used airplanes. The horrific number of black youths killed by gang violence are almost entirely a cultural issue that years of liberal side-stepping has made worse. But Dave, you keep your head in the sand about our nation’s real problems. Keep toeing the line for the progressive left. Keep saying things that very few Americans actually agree with.

More troubling than Dave’s targeting of the NRA is his total lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Due process cannot be foregone – unless you’re the president and see fit to do so.. apparently. Media outrage? Nope, just more like poor Dave piling on to the “you don’t deserve your rights” movement.

We have New York’s Bloomberg deciding what you can drink and eat. Several states are deciding what firearms your second amendment allows you to own and which one it does not. Day-by-day, the government is deciding that you are not self-sufficient. You, Mr. and Mrs. American, cannot take care of yourselves. You citizens need the government to tell you what rights you do or do not have!

Dave is just saying out loud what all those liberal Democrats are thinking. “They don’t think like us so let’s take away their rights and lock them up!” What’s that you say? Dave never said to lock up the NRA? Oh, but he did:

Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.

It’s easy to believe that taking away some other law-abiding citizen’s rights is OK as long as it affords you some level of security. Unfortunately, it is also the slippery slope to serfdom.

Sure, you won’t lose all of your rights in a moment. It will be limits on this or limits on that. Slowly, but surely, you won’t be able to say much that the ruling class disagrees with.

Then come the rules about what you may not possess. Harmless at first, then more intrusive until finally you’re stripped of anything the D.C. elite see as an obstacle to their power and agenda.

This isn’t theory, it’s history brought forward. Learning from governments of the past to understand what those actions eventually bring about. Learning from all those citizens who at those times thought “surely that can’t happen here.”

Ignorance is the tool of the left. Whether Mr. Perry wrote this in a moment of rage, out of spite or because he has an agenda is impossible to guess. The results of such thoughts have been proven throughout time.

The bill, which will limit the manufacture or sale of 11+ round magazines,  was voted out of the committee by a narrow 3-2 vote, but is widely expected to pass the full House in a vote this Wednesday. Governor Jack Markell is also in full support of the measure.

Delaware citizens will still be allowed to own the banned magazines and use them in private settings such as ranges or at home.

Bans such as the one Delaware is considering do not only limit the magazines. The ban also prevents citizens from purchasing many guns that normally come with magazines holding 12 or more rounds. The bill will severely limit the availability of firearms for those wanting one for home defense, personal protection or competition.

Active and retired police officers will still have the ability to purchase the magazines and guns with higher capacities although many firearms manufacturers and retailers no longer sell items to government agencies that the state prevents their citizens from owning. The firearms companies share the common sentiment that if the citizens of a state have had their second amendment rights infringed, then the state agencies should live with the same restrictions.

Evan Westrup, a spokesman Governor Brown said that the bill “makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals.”

The state has always had laws allowing them to take weapons from those who obtained them legally but have since committed a crime or been diagnosed with a psychological condition. This new legislation puts $24 million behind the law so that confiscations can happen faster.

The first of many gun restriction bills to head to the governor, this measure hires dozens of new agents specifically for the task of firearms confiscation.

The money does not come from the state’s general fund. Instead, the $24 million will be taken from a fund intended to strengthen California’s background check system.

The fees are known as DROS fees or “Dealer’s Record of Sale”. While other states collect no additional fees from dealer’s, California set up the DROS fee telling constituents that the fees would go to enhance the background check system. Instead, it appears that the fees will be used to confiscate firearms.

No good fee goes unpilfered.

The firearms background check system has been the focus of gun debate for the past few months. Supposedly, 90% of Americans wanted to see improved background checks. Now California believes that funds intended for such actions should be used to collect firearms that were legally bought instead.

Many ask where the money will come from to improve the background check system? How else will the large community of retail firearms-purchasing criminals be caught when they buy “assault rifles” at a gun store?

The good news is that California already has a registry of its gun owners which makes finding the current gun owners easier. The state has a database containing all those owning guns that the NRA and gun rights activists have long said would lead to confiscation.

Now, Governor Brown has proven that those registries are used to find gun owners for the purpose of taking their firearms. While the reasons may or may not make sense to different groups, the purpose of the database is now obvious.

What happens when the gun ownership bar is lowered next time? Will traffic tickets be enough? Spitting on the sidewalk? Shooting a double-barreled shotgun out the back door for home defense? Hey, don’t blame me, that was the Vice-President’s idea. Or what if the local law decides that your attitude on government is troubling? The Palm Beach Post reports that Palm Beach, Florida Sheriff Ric Bradshaw has been given the power to investigate people that disagree with their government.

The Florida state legislature gave the Sheriff $1 million dollars which he intends to use to fund an intervention unit.

The Sheriff says the new unit is important and that he wants ”

people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government.”

Sheriff Bradshaw replied to concerns saying “We know how to sift through frivolous complaints.”, but many are not convinced.

“We don’t want to take away people’s civil liberties just because people aren’t behaving the way we think they should be,” said Liz Downey of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

It appears that the California legislature is ignoring their constituents, the will of the people, public sentiment or all those other words Obama uses to tell us that Congress is doing it wrong.

When asked if this program should be a model for the nation, a Los Angeles Times poll had these results as of 9:00pm on Thursday (you can vote in it HERE):

“…your side of the aisle keeps trying to make ploys instead of dealing with the real issue. Keep playing games!”

A Democrat Replies:

“We don’t want someone like that carrying a concealed weapon.”

From Conservative Videos:

In the end, House members voted 76-31 against a proposal, pushed by Chicago-area Democrats, that would have allowed county sheriffs and other government officials to weigh in on whether a person should be allowed to have a concealed-carry permit. The “may issue” proposal, House Bill 831, was modeled after a highly restrictive New York gun law.

The suspects were informed were informed by Yuma Justice of the Peace Greg Stewart that there were each being held on in allegations of attempted murder, armed robbery and aggravated assault. The victim has so far been held harmless in for defending himself.

Prosecutor William Katz told the court that “The victim was in town visiting a family member and was standing outside a residence when he was approached by two males. They demanded his wallet, when he didn’t comply, they demanded his wallet again. It was at that point that they brandished a weapon and [the victim] took out his own .45-caliber weapon. Refusing to be a victim, he fired and struck one of the assailants in the neck.”

According to reports, the intended victim had a legally concealed firearm and is likely to be uncharged in the case.

The victim was neither shot nor otherwise injured in the attempted robbery. He is also in full possession of his wallet and its contents.

The suspect who was shot is being treated for a life-threatening gunshot wound.

magpul colorado

Gun accessory manufacturer Magpul has moved the manufacture of two of its most popular products to other states.

After Colorado passed a law making any magazines over 15 rounds illegal, Magpul vowed to move some or all of its manufacturing out-of-state. Now, the accessory maker is living up to the promise.

Magpul is now making PMags, magazines that can hold 10 t0 30 rounds, outside of the Centennial State for the first time.

Moving magazine production isn’t the final action that Magpul is taking. It has also moved it’s rifle sight production to another state and is currently looking for a new home for its headquarters.

The accessory maker is also expected to announce further details on its plans after this weekend’s National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Houston, TX.

Now, I come to target of this monologue.

This past weekend the Snow Canyon Lady Warriors rugby team in St. George, Utah conducted an event to raise money to assist them in traveling to a national competition, out of state.  A passerby decided to choose to be offended by the event. “This is a highly inappropriate way for a team to raise money, no matter how desperately it’s needed.”

What was the egregious event?  A bake sale combined with a raffle for shotgun.  In this lady’s mind the raffle equated to insensitivity to recent tragic events across the nation that have cost people their lives.  Insensitivity to mayhem raises the eyebrow of any rational person.

Yet, with full sensitivity to those events, I asked the question, “What made this women chief of the appropriateness police?”  Where does she deem she has authority delegated to her by society to decide what is or is not appropriate…beyond her own self-appointed superiority complex?  Yes, I know that sounds harsh.  It was intended to sound harsh.  Because those who would lord themselves over others will learn by no other means than directness.

This woman of course ran to the school officials bawling that she was too weak to view opinions opposed to her own.  In response the equally weakling principal jumped to confusions about his role.  According to the newspaper article he is placing the coach in jeopardy of her job.  Why?  Because he too believes it is somehow his role to declare to the community what moral offenses (as his opinion dictates) can or cannot be committed.  He has assigned himself, by merit of a simple administrative bureaucrat role, as the chief of moral values for the community.  How absolutely presumptuous.  Perhaps rather than dismissing the coach, for allowing her team to conduct a legal activity, it should be the principal that is fired for being a clear and present danger to the liberties of the community.

We live in a society that is sacrificing itself upon the alter self-importance.  Somehow, a preponderance of members of our society have come to the conclusion that their choice to be offended is more precious than another person’s right to liberty.  Another way of stating that is “My desires are more relevant than your rights”.  Or, yet, even more succinctly “My liberty to have control over you exceeds your liberty to have control over yourself.”

Such presumptuousness is evil at its core.

We have, in the name of the awful doctrine of psychological self-awareness, attempted to build a moral fabric of society upon a foundation of “feelings” rather than conduct.  Said a woman and a principal of questionable principles “we are entitled to pretend that our opinions deserve the same protection as does violation of your liberty.”

Further, we have fallen victims to the age old fallacy that “when they are learned, they think they are wise.”  We were warned and forewarned against such foolish assumptions…by men far wiser than most of us.

Now, for the record, I despise the use of guns.  I equally despise the acts of violence which so easily men engage in to enforce their power-over others.  The use of guns in place of reason is an insult to the dignity of mankind.  I make no distinction as to why, what brand, what caliber a gun is.  I despise the lot of them.  Yet, having said that, I know how to use many of them.  And, because some reactionary people, such as those who take offense at the liberty of others or seek to exercise control over them by mere titles, it becomes necessary for some of us to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution assured that right to bear arms after diligent and thoughtful discourse among men of reason and principle.  I have yet to meet or hear of any person in my lifetime with greater wisdom and inspiration than them.  But, it is not just their wisdom we can honor.  It was the reasonable understanding and logic of the entire nation of people that embraced that right to bear arms to whom we ought to look to fashion our own wisdom.

The assault on a group of girls by a zealot, supported by a potentate, is possibly far more egregious, to all, than the girl’s offense of being nothing more than a group of carnival barkers crying “Come one and all.  Step right up.  Try your chance at winning a symbol of your liberty.”

Some examples of a fool’s errand would be the United States Senate, controlled by Democrats, spending hours attempting to pass a gun control Bill that is completely absurd, pointless to send it to Republican House of Representatives, and ultimately a useless effort.  The president, rather than recognizing the inevitable outcome, then squeals like a stuck pig because it didn’t pass the Senate.  He promises to not let it go, just like he did with “Obamacare”.

Now, consider that for all intents and purposes Obamacare has been an abject failure.  States are getting waivers.  Cost projections to conduct the fiasco have exceeded all pre-vote estimates.  Businesses are making major shifts toward reducing personnel expenses in order to avoid Obamcare mandates.  In other words the jobs recovery is in fact threatened by this boondoggle.  Barack Obama is a lame-duck president.  His shaky allies from the Obamacare days will not have the loyalty to him that he could demand previously.  A fool’s errand.

Let us move on so as not to focus all failures on the president.  The senate had the opportunity to prevent a discussion of the violation of Second Amendment.  Sixty-eight senators, including sixteen Republicans decided for their various reasons to evade their oath of office, which reads:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Yet, sixty-eight senators specifically ignored “I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”. The oath does not say “If I agree with it”.  Now for clarification the Constitution says, quite clearly I might add, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

In other words each senator takes an oath of allegiance to not infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.  That is the starting point, not the fallback position.  An effort by the senate, regardless of how well meaning it was, to bring this gun control Bill to the floor for a vote was in fact a fool’s errand.  For a senator faithful to their duty any excuse was absurd.

Finally, following on these ill-conceived notions by Senators, House members, and the President we had a terrorist attack in Boston.  I have jokingly said that more people were trampled by Washington politicians, racing for a microphone, than were injured in that attack.  Each had to express an opinion outside their role in the government.  They pretend to be reassuring the nation and consoling the victims.  Yet, we have become so accustomed to their frivolity we recognize their efforts for what they really are; A fool’s errand, absurd and unbelievable.

I am not hard-hearted.  I fully believe in rallying a nation behind a good cause.  However, I also oppose grandstanding by politicians to curry favor during a crisis.  Here is the key element.  Congress passed a Bill to provide for the defense of the nation.  The president signed that Bill, and it became law.  Whether you agree with that law or not Congress is done with it.  The Executive Branch has a duty under that law.  Grandstanding by Congressmen is a fool’s errand.

Now, back to the president.  His duty is to faithfully execute the laws of the land.  That duty is in the Constitution as his oath of office; ” I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  That is all he needs to do.  It is neither requisite nor prudent to engage in discussions of reading someone their rights, exaggerate to avoidance of the use of the word “terrorist”, or even issue threats (idle or genuine).  To do otherwise is “completely absurd, pointless, or useless”.  Regardless of what religion the president is, or claims to be, the advice of Jesus Christ is sound “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; {or} Nay, nay.”

The nation, overall, lacks confidence that our Washington DC elected officials are sincere, capable, or rational.  The people see them as being on a fool’s errand.  And, quite candidly, that is exactly how they act.

While most Conservatives could care less what celebs think about the constitution, we should. Why do you think liberals have pranced the unthinking stars and starlets out in front of the media to enhance the progressive agenda? Well, because exposure works and there is no such thing as bad press.

The notably pro gun are truly .. notable.

Brad Pitt was interviewed by British Magazine where he said, “I feel better having a gun.”

Chuck Norris is a no-brainer. Constitutional rights ads, outspoken positions and … well, he’s Chuck Norris.

An obvious pick for the celeb-de-arm is Uncle Ted. Ted Nugent is a mighty supporter of gun rights, the second amendment and liberties overall.

Country Western diva Miranda Lambert carries regularly after having received serious death threats. As she puts it, “I am my own security.”

Die Hard’s Bruce Willis also understands how firearms restrictions work as he says. “If you take guns away from legal gun aowners, then the only people who have guns are the bad guys.”

Angelina Jolie has her own shooting range and told The Daily Mail, “If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I’ve no problem shooting them.” Exactly the sentiment expressed by everyday gun owners.

You see, gun ownership isn’t just about hunting or collecting. Most own for defensive purposes. Aggressors typically have numerical, age or strength advantages. A firearm evens the playing field, to use an Obama term, for everyone.

Aerosmith’s Joe Perry said, “I grew up in America so granted, it is part of our heritage and it is written into the laws of how this country is run.”

Clint Eastwood is an obvious addition to the list. Quoting a famous gun rights saying, Clint said, “I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it.”

James Earl Jones put the base gun right’s argument into succinct terms:

“The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.”

Members of the NRA:

- Clint Eastwood

- James Earl Jones

- Ted Nugent

- Tom Selleck (board member)

Other notables:
- Gary Sinise

- Johnny Depp

- Ice-T

Yesterday I wrote about government dictating how illegal aliens are going to be legalized by the “Gang of 8” scheme.  It matters not to Congress or the regime what We the People or the Constitution say.  They will decide how it is going to be and We the People will just have to accept it because it is “fair”.  Today I write about gun control and how government intends to impose their will on We the People, disregarding the Constitution and the rights of said People.  How does fairness and public safety figure into the latest dictates on firearms?

Gun control is being handled exactly the same way they have handled the illegal alien problem.  A nut goes out and shoots some people, so they pass laws to stop it from happening again.  Except that it happened again because they haven’t enforced the “new” laws they passed the last time this came up.  Gun control has been such a raging success everywhere it has been tried hasn’t it?  Gang violence with firearms is rampant in the major gun free zones in our nation.  Sen. Ted Cruz recently gave out 2010 figures  that show 15,700 attempts by criminals to legally access firearms, in one year: 2010.  They were caught by the background check system in effect right now.  The Obama regime has prosecuted 44.  Clintonesque isn’t it???

So, the Obama regime prosecuted just 44 out of 15,700 background check cases that the current law caught, in one year, and we need more restrictions on firearms???  You have got to be kidding me, AGAIN!!  Chicago is a stellar case for gun free zones.  Is it fair that Chicago’s “gun free zone” is more dangerous to poor black children than Afghanistan is to our soldiers?  And the gun free Mecca of Washington D. C. (De Cesspool) is right on Chicago’s heels.

Is it fair to the law abiding citizen who reads the Constitution and sees “shall not be infringed” being infringed by both political parties; “for our own well-being and safety”, of course?  Is it fair to the homeowner who hears a group of armed thugs kicking in his door or smashing a window to rob the home in the middle of the night?  The old saying goes, “when seconds count the police are minutes away”!!!  That is not a slap at the police by any stretch.  I salute their dedication and understand their frustration at arresting criminals, only to see the same criminals walking the street before the ink is dry on the arrest report.

Is it fair to the 6 year old murdered in a Chicago gang shooting because she happened to be sitting on the front steps with her sister???  Is it fair to the family that loses a child who has nothing to do with gangs but can neither move out of the neighborhood nor possess a firearm to defend themselves from the gang member?  You know, the gang member who has been arrested a dozen times for gun law violations but is out on bail or parole; the same gang member who finds a full automatic weapon that no law abiding citizen will ever possess???  And he didn’t buy it through any “gun show loophole”!!!

So, do they really need to pass “new” restrictions on the 2^nd Amendment to solve the problems that have been created by not enforcing the “new” restrictions they passed the last time this came up?  “Pass something quick and we can fill in the details later” is the order of the day in government.  Kind of like “we have to pass it so we can find out what is in it”, isn’t it??

Is anyone seeing a pattern here?  There is a problem, any problem; illegal aliens, poverty, murder, gang violence, drug trafficking, terrorism, etc.  The problem has been addressed countless times in the past and new laws and regulations have been passed but not enforced each time, not enforced because those laws will be “unfair” to those breaking the law.   The answer of politicians is always more control over those who actually follow the laws.  Everyone knows, and politicians admit, that absolutely nothing in the current crop of new legislation would do anything to solve the problem of gun violence, or prevent another Sandy Hook from happening.

These last two articles are but two examples of many that show a total disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the well-being and liberty of We the People.  The politicians and the bureaucrats spend all of their time thinking up ways to further restrict the rights of citizens when they should be focusing on enforcing the last set of “new” laws, rules, and regulations they passed.  They admit the new laws won’t matter, yet demand that those of us who do obey the law give up our rights anyway.  They need to pass this idea for a possible outline quick before anyone can look at it.    “We have to pass it so we can find out what is in it”, AGAIN!!!

The political class is destroying our nation.  They never fix anything!!!  They continually put restrictions on what legal citizens can do without so much as a thought of what the Constitution provides for.  That “old and outdated” document means nothing to either political party.

There are a few in the Senate and a few in the House who are fighting the establishments of both parties on behalf of We the People.  They are being beaten down by those who control both political parties and their minions in the media.  The People’s voices are not welcomed by Republicans or Democrats.  They know best and will “debate and tell us where they stand”.  From my reading and studying of the Constitution I thought they were supposed to decide based on the Constitution first and the will of We the People second.

Now on the heels of Boston they want to force background checks before We the People can buy gunpowder, pressure cookers, and ham hocks!!!!!  Never mind that the entire problem is Muslim murderers who have no conscience, and their government enablers who “never let a good crisis go to waste”.  There isn’t any sense in securing our borders or deporting known terrorist sympathizers!!!  The only thing that makes sense to those dictators in Washington is to further restrict the liberty of decent law abiding citizens.

They have their dictatorial oligarchy established and will not turn loose of it easily.  The statists who control both parties are seeing We the People stand up to their treachery and they don’t like it.  They want to get things jammed through as quickly as possible, knowing that time is not on their side.  We the people are fed up, standing up, and demanding they govern by the Constitution first and the will of the people second.  The disarming of We the People and the arming of DHS is government saying; ”NO We will NOT obey the Constitution, YOU will obey us“!!!!!

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

April 22, 2013

When: Friday, April 19 at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J West

Tonight: This week, Stevie has dumped me (as payback I assume) to go sing Karaoke…But, the beautiful Donlyn Turnbull (@DonlynTurnbull) has graciously agreed to co-host the show with me tonight and keep me in line.

We’ll be joined by @AiPolitics for a discussion on the #GangOf8 Immigration Bill in the second segment. Also, we’ll be checking in with Stevie at her party in LA throughout the evening and have a few special guests on the line from there. If we’re REALLY lucky, (and she is REALLY drunk) she may even sing us a song on the air.

I’m glad to be back, this is going to be a fun show!! And, as always, the bar is open at Casa de Hammy…it’s time to GET HAMMERED!!

Mark Kelly enjoys shooting his Glock 9mm handgun, the same firearm used to injure his wife in 2012.

While Mr. Kelly’s firearm only has a 17 round magazine at the time the video was shot, it would still have been banned under the Democratic party’s proposed legislation. The same ban Gabrielle Gifford hypocritically expressed anger at not having been passed.

The ban that failed the Senate would have limited Gifford’s husband to 10 rounds. For some reason, Gabby doesn’t seem to mind her own family possessing magazines she feels the average citizen should not own.

If eleven rounds is too many, then why is her family entitled to use magazines that hold seventeen?

The hypocrisy is too much to bear. If the only way gun owners are to buy the guns the way the manufacturer makes them is to be related to a Congressional member, elitism is our near future.

If it is good enough for thee, it is good enough for me.