Tag Archives: Gun control

Are You Smarter Than a Supreme Court Judge?

Stevens’ idea for amending the Constitution is a loser, too.

Stevens’ idea for amending the Constitution is a loser, too.

April was not a good month for Americans that still believe the Supreme Court is a font of legal wisdom. Former Justice John Paul Stevens authored an Op–Ed in the WaPost proving you can be ignorant of history, blinded by ideology and confused regarding the plain meaning of words and still get to wear the black robe.

Stevens’ essay was titled ‘The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment.’

And no, Stevens’ five words weren’t “you can’t have a gun,” but that’s a good guess.

He began his effort in problem–solving by using the left’s favorite technique: Use distorted statistics to shock the public and advance a disingenuous argument: “Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents.”

That’s a big number. Almost as big as the total number of Americans killed each year in car crashes. What Stevens purposely leaves out is the fact that 19,392 — or six in ten — of those deaths were suicide!

Once the suicide is removed from the total, it become obvious that riding in a car driven by a cell phone–wielding woman is much more dangerous than living in Virginia where people are allowed to carry guns openly. And cell phones aren’t protected by the Constitution.

What Stevens should be calling for is federal suicide control. If Congress would stop listening to the mortuary lobby and pass an effective law banning suicide — or at least get the ball rolling by creating suicide–free zones (this alone would speed up Metro travel in DC) — we could eliminate almost two–thirds of the gun deaths overnight.

The rest of the country could experience the safety and tranquility that residents of Detroit and Chicago currently enjoy in their gun–free cities. Once suicide is outlawed only criminals will kill themselves, surely a win–win.

But suicide doesn’t generate much news coverage so publicity–seekers aren’t interested in this sensible step to prevent unnecessary death.

Stevens contends the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was ‘settled,’ much like global warming science, until the NRA went rogue. “For more than 200 years… federal judges uniformly understood that the right…was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.”

That’s accurate without being truthful, since for two centuries neither states nor the federal government were trying to ban types of weapons, restrict the sale of weapons or impose ownership restrictions. So who would file a suit to stop an infringement that didn’t exist?

As for not imposing a limit on state or local governments, Stevens proves his knowledge of the Constitution is limited. If what he wrote is true then the Bill of Rights wouldn’t prevent states and cities from limiting speech, searching without a warrant and shutting down the newspaper if it criticized Barack Obama.

Stevens then lurches from urging judges to butt out because, “Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.” To complaining that those same legislators aren’t doing enough to seize weapons from the law abiding in the wake of Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.

Before gracing us with his five–word prescription for domestic gun bliss, Stevens’ last contribution is to completely misrepresent the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. He claims the amendment “was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated.” This is ludicrous on its face. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect individual rights and without those 10 amendments the Constitution would not have passed.

The obvious plain language of the 2nd protects an individual right to own weapons, but that’s evidently too subtle for a retired Supreme Court justice.

Then Stevens graces us with his solution: His amended amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

If anything those five words would initiate an explosion of litigation.

In Athens a citizen was subject to military service until age 60. I figure I can pull a trigger until well into my 90’s. Sixteen–year–olds often served in militias, too, so many underage restrictions go by the board, thanks to Stevens.

As a serving militia member I will need my weapons at hand in case of a sudden call out. That makes militia members immune to any restrictions on carrying a firearm. I can carry in schools, courtrooms, national parks, football stadiums and even Toby Keith’s.

Stevens evidently believes the same legislators who aren’t passing the gun laws he wants are suddenly going to come down hard on militias. Historically militias were locally based and locally run without interference or control from the state government.

Each militia decided what weapons to carry, uniforms to wear, method of selecting officers and how often to meet. With Judge Stevens help you can think of the new militia as the Shriners with sidearms.

And as for what weapons to carry, let’s look at the world’s best–known militia the Taliban. The Talibs have RPGs, fully automatic rifles, grenades, heavy machine guns and donkeys. Everything the well–equipped American militia member could want, except for the donkey.

Stevens’ ‘solution’ removes age restrictions, expands the scope of weapons allowed for personal ownership and eliminates most geographic restrictions on where weapons can be carried. It’s the exact opposite of what Stevens wants, but not an unusual outcome for leftist social engineering.

If it weren’t for those boring monthly militia meetings, I would support him 100 percent.

Obama Requests $1.1B for Gun Control – and does it wrong

Like the Senator that thought magazines were disposable, another that thought ARs could shoot 30 rounds in 1/2 second and the list of other politicians that misunderstand every aspect of gun ownership – Now, our President has put out a request for more than a billion dollars to spend on a list of gun control measures that is clearly upside down.

From Breitbart.com:

President Obama has requested $1.1 billion and the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked for $382.1 million for gun control “to protect Americans from gun violence.”

Included in the DOJ’s $382.1 million figure is a request for $2 million for smart gun technology grants.

According to The Washington Beacon, Obama’s $1.1 billion “[includes] $182 million to support the president’s ‘Now is the Time’ gun safety initiative.”

“Now is the Time” includes the following:

1. Require background checks for all gun sales.

2. Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.

3. Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.

4. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

5. Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets

6. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime

7. End the freeze on gun violence research

8. Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.

9. Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.

Now, if someone is serious about ending the school shootings and the recent mass-knifing at a school were really serious, they would look at the common cause – mental illness. They wouldn’t be focusing on the weapon. A mentally ill person can do great harm with a knife, dry ice bomb (gonna outlaw dry ice?), pressure cooker or whatever they can find. Let’s first examine the President’s list:

1. Require background checks for all gun sales.

It says sales, but I think they mean transfers. It’s hard to tell with liberals – definitions of words mean little to them. I don’t want to have to do a background check on my son when I give him a new dove gun.

2. Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.

Honestly, the NRA and I agree on this. More criminal data in the system is necessary and a long time coming. What’s scary is that we don’t honestly know if what the President means by this is what WE mean by this.

3. Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.

No such thing. Should we also ban “assault knives” like the one the kid used to harm 23 people today or “assault pressure cookers” like the ones use in the Boston bombings? The weapons they want to ban are semi-automatic rifles (today.) Once they get those, punp-action or bolt-action guns will be next. They just want to push things one step further and give it a scary name. AR actually stands for “Armalite Rifle.”

4. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

This will destroy the competition-shooting community and does nothing to promote safety. This is irresponsible and anyone who re-elects someone that votes for anything like this is just waiting to have them decide that 5, or 3 rounds are enough next time. 

5. Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets

Yes, because those are used every day to … well actually they aren’t really used against armored targets in much of any crime. Just think of all the bank robberies or convenience store hold-ups this would prevent … or something

6. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime

This one, I agree with. As long as I understand what a gun crime is. Fast and furious? That seems like a gun crime.. guess they need additional tools to prosecute someone.. anyone .. for that debacle.

7. End the freeze on gun violence research

Research away, studies come to the conclusion of the organization paying them to do so. More government studies telling us the new ice age is coming (circa 1970) should be totally paid for by American tax dollars .. or something

8. Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.

Armed security yes. Nurturing climate? Seriously? Whose the parent here? Ahhh… yup, just got it.

9. Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.

Who believes the government can make that happen? They can’t even create an effective healthcare marketplace. Imagine a government-regulated mental healthcare regime…. 

The real list is simpler:

  1. Do some research on the anti-depressants, ADD, and other anti-psychotic drugs that a massive and unavoidable majority of the mass-violence culprits were on
  2. End gun-free zones. Most attacks end the instant someone confronts the attacker with a firearm – police response times are long and won’t get better as the population grows.
  3. Don’t nurture kids at school, make them strong and independent. Teach them that not everything is easy, success is not guaranteed and perhaps more of them won’t be propelled into psychosis when the least small thing goes wrong. Let them have their tantrums as 3 year olds or they might just have them at 17 instead.

Moms Group Demanding Stricter Gun Laws Bribe Legislators With Cookies

cookiesThey say the way to any man’s heart is through his belly!

Sounds a bit like bribery, wouldn’t you say?!

Mothers Calling on Legislators to Support Initiative 594: Gun Background Checks

OLYMPIA, Wash., Jan. 15, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Washington State members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America will convene at the Capitol on Friday, Jan. 17, to urge legislators to support background checks for private and online gun sales and gun shows.

The day will kick-off with a rally and press event at 9:30am on the North Capitol Steps in Olympia. Speakers will include Kate Beck, Washington State chapter leader of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and Zoe Moore, who lost her daughter to gun violence, Rep. Tara Senn (D-41), and Chair of House Judiciary Committee Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-27).

After the rally, volunteers will visit legislators to deliver bell-shaped cookies calling for “No More Silence.”

“We cannot stay silent. Our members will share their stories with over 50 legislators today,” said Kate Beck, Washington Statechapter leader of Moms Demand Action. “We are asking them to make it harder for criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill to purchase guns by requiring background checks for private and online sales, and at gun shows.”

Initiative 594 would extend the criminal and public safety background checks currently used by licensed firearms dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions. If the legislature does not act on the initiative, it will appear on the November 2014 ballot to be decided upon by the people of Washington.

“Our children’s safety is top of mind,” said member and volunteer of Moms Demand Action, Jocelyn Wood. “Common sense gun legislation is a big part of keeping our children and our communities safe.”

In states that require a background check for private handgun sales, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners, and there are 17 percent fewer firearm aggravated assaults.

“We hope that the legislature will act in the best interest of Washington’s public health, but if not, we know there is widespread support across Washington for background checks and our moms will be there every step of the way,” said Beck.

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America-Washington State Chapter is a member of the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility.

About Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America

Much like Mothers Against Drunk Driving was created to change laws regarding drunk driving, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America was created to build support for common-sense gun reforms. The nonpartisan grassroots movement of American mothers is demanding new and stronger solutions to lax gun laws and loopholes that jeopardize the safety of our children and families. In just one year, the organization has more than 130,000 members with a chapter in every state in the country. The group recently announced it is joining forces with Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country.

 www.momsdemandaction.org
www.facebook.com/MomsDemandAction
Twitter @MomsDemand

How gun free zones and liberal policies contribute to mass shootings

liberallogic101
Aaron Alexis was allowed to walk into a Navy Shipyard last week and systematically execute 12 people because his prior arrests for gun possession were never prosecuted and his cries for mental help were never addressed.

Instead of prosecuting Aaron Alexis on two separate crimes involving a firearm our politically correct judicial system instead issued him two get out of jail free cards. In addition, the mental health professionals who were supposed to recognize the warning signs instead gave him the benefit of the doubt and never shared their findings with the appropriate agencies who could have determined his mental status.

How did this man pass multiple background checks and evade multiple arrests involving firearm use and possession? Why did Aaron Alexis choose the Navy Ship Yard to perpetrate his crime? What drove this young man to commit this heinous act?

The Democratic Party will have you believe that this shooting was a result of too many guns in too many hands. They will have you believe that a complete ban on guns is the only answer to preventing these acts. They will blame it on Right Wing Extremists, the Second Amendment, and the National Rifle Association. They will give you every single excuse under the sun except for their own failed liberal policies.

What they won’t tell you is the truth.

In 1993 former president Bill Clinton issued an order forbidding members of the military and their civilian contractors from carrying their own personal firearms on military bases. Since this ruling at least 25 military personnel have been murdered as a result of this policy. I bet you never heard this on ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN did you?

Since 1950, almost every single public shooting in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have taken place in what are commonly known as “gun free” zones. The main reason this tragedy occurred was due to Bill Clinton’s 1993 draconian policy on gun control.

Let’s take a look at some mass shootings that took place in gun free zones.

The last mass shooting on a military base happened only four short years ago. Nidal Hasan shot 13 people to death in Fort Hood, Texas in what is the worst mass shooting on a military base in history. Once again, Fort Hood was a gun free zone.

Last December Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot to death 26 people, including 20 children. Once again, there were no faculty armed on school grounds essentially making the school another easy target in a gun free zone.

James Holmes, who shot to death 12 people last year in a Colorado movie theatre did so by seeking out the one theatre out of seven in the metropolitan Denver area that was in a gun free zone.

In 2007 Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho shot to death 32 students in the worst mass shooting in United States history. Once again, Virginia Tech was a gun free campus with a complete ban on firearms on school property even for security guards and those that possessed a legal concealed weapons permit.

In 1999 two students who attended gun free zone Columbine High School in Colorado murdered 12 of their fellow classmates before turning their guns on themselves.

There are many other incidents of mass shootings that took place in gun free zones but for sake of time I can’t list them all. The fact is that gun free zones kill innocent victims. The people that commit these crimes are well aware that they will not meet an armed resistance which is exactly why these cowards choose these locations.

If military personnel were allowed to carry personal firearms on base these shooters would have thought twice about committing these crimes. If colleges, universities, high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, and even movie theatres were not in gun free zones than most of these tragedies would not have occurred.

The reality is not all shootings can be prevented. But allowing more law abiding citizens to carry firearms will decrease the amount of mass shootings. If plain clothed officers were allowed to patrol schools and carry a firearm it will make these places less of an attractive target. We need more guns in school not less guns in school. We need more guns on military bases not less guns on military bases. We need more armed citizens at movies theatres, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.

The biggest deterrent to fighting crime is not creating the environment that entices it. Most criminals will take the path of least resistance which is why gun free zones are so deadly. If more law abiding citizens were armed there would actually be less mass shootings. As Robert A. Heinlein once said, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his or her acts with their life.”

If you like this article you will love my radio show. Please tune into the The Grit and Grace Show live every Tuesday and Thursday nights from 8-10pm CST or anytime right here: www.blogtalkradio.com/gritgraceradio

Suggested by the author

An armed society is a polite society

Reading, writing, and marksmanship

Obama’s DHS: Drones, Hollow Points, and Secrecy

Barack Obama, liberal policies fan the flames of racism against White America

How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters

Feeling Threatened? Borrow a Legislator!

Indians & Gun ControlThe reason the debate over the 2nd Amendment is so futile is that supporters of the amendment have two jobs — one expected, the other burdensome. Marshalling an argument for your position is only natural in a debate and if it’s not done, that side deserves to lose.

What’s burdensome is 2nd Amendment supporters also have to explain how guns function to opponents who are dangerously ignorant and basing their position on feelings, myths and MSNBC.

It’s like debating physics with Wile E. Coyote.

The gun control debate in Colorado is a perfect example. For years Rep. Diana DeGette (D–Space Cadet) has sponsored federal legislation to ban “high capacity magazines.” Naturally after Sandy Hook, DeGette began pontificating about her bill once again. She predicted that banning “high–capacity magazines” would reduce gun violence because “”the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

This may have been true if DeGette was talking about a “high–capacity” lipstick cartridge, but not an ammunition magazine. This is the equivalent of fighting high school vandalism by banning “high–capacity” egg cartons sold at Costco. In the real world magazines are reloaded and can be reused over and over, just like purses!

Later DeGette sent her “spokeswoman” Juliet Johnson out to clarify her remarks, but unfortunately the ignorance in her office isn’t confined to the officeholder. Johnson explained, “The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism.”

Wrong again. “Clip” is an inaccurate term for magazine and by any name the device is reusable as long as the spring holds up.

During hearings for state anti–gun legislation in March, State Sen. Evie Hudak told a rape victim testifying before her committee that it was foolish to think she could have stopped her attacker with a gun: “Statistics are not on your side,” Hudak explained.

For those residents who might want to pack more than a sheaf of statistics on their hip, House Majority Leader Dickey Hullinghorst offered solace. She claimed during an interview that firearms ownership is unnecessary because the state legislature protects citizens.

“As a woman, I have the right not to carry a gun and to feel safe on the streets,” Hullinghorst lectured, “and that’s what we provide for in the state legislature is for all of us in the state of Colorado — to feel safe on the streets without having to carry a gun.”

This could work. Here in the DC area we have a system called Capital Bikeshare where participants buy a membership and then borrow bicycles from stations scattered across the area when they need to go somewhere and don’t want to walk or drive.

I can see the same principle working with Colorado Legis–share. When a woman who doesn’t want to pack heat feels uneasy at the prospect of walking along a dark street, she simply borrows a legislator from a nearby station and the solon accompanies her. Residents can buy memberships from the nearest lobbyist.

Strong, assertive women like Hullinghorst would probably be in high demand, but any legislator is better than no legislator when you’re in a tight spot.

The Democrat–dominated state house then passed a series of anti–gun laws that resulted in a recall election for two prominent Democrat gun grabbers Sen. Angela Giron (Pueblo) and Sen. John Morse (Colorado Springs). The recall pitted the media, Democrats and billionaires like Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Eli Broad against a plumber who had to borrow money from granny to start the recall drive.

Yet outspent 27 to 1 the plumber and conservatives in Colorado won! Both Democrats lost and will be replaced by Republicans.

Evidence of firearms fantasy is not confined to Colorado though. After a calm and courageous bookkeeper named Antoinette Tuff prevented a school shooting by talking the gunman into surrendering, I anticipated the gunphobics would be urging Congress to pass emergency funding to put a bookkeeper with a megaphone in every elementary school in the country.

Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak certainly didn’t disappoint. She crowed that there were no deaths in Decatur, GA in spite of the fact teachers weren’t armed, the NRA’s gun–toting police officers weren’t present and the school didn’t have “frightening ‘intruder drills.’”

Dvorak explains, “As soon as the man entered the school and fired one round into the floor, Tuff called 911 and stayed smooth and calm as a computer help line operator. She kept a conversation going among herself, the gunman and the 911 dispatcher…Her 911 call — listen to the whole thing; it’s riveting — is a portrait of poise, compassion and selflessness. She was exactly what America is forgetting to be.”

Unfortunately for Petula and all the lessons she would have America draw from this single incident, there is a stark difference between this attack and other shootings. The Georgia gunman shot the floor, while the high school, university and elementary school gunmen shot people. You’d think a highly trained reporter would notice that.

A school that prepared for a variety of contingencies and had a bookkeeper with a megaphone, along with an armed teacher or two, would have options for dealing with a gunman depending on whether the he shot the parquet or the principal. In Dvorak’s dream school the students and teachers would be out of luck in almost every case.

But that’s not an argument one can make with legislators, advocates and leftist journalists that live in a dream world. And even the Colorado recall results may bounce off their impermeable armor of ignorance and arrogance.

So for the rest of us the choice boils down to this: You can have “statistics” on your side or you can have Smith & Wesson. The choice is yours, for now.

Newsman leaves crucial detail out of burglary account

gabriel amadeus (CC)

gabriel amadeus (CC)

Newsman leaves crucial detail out of burglary account

Somehow, Dan Rather is still able to find an audience despite his very public ouster from CBS in 2004 after reporting falsified and unsubstantiated information about President George W. Bush.

Of course, his audience has been decreased exponentially, but the holdover from a bygone generation of news anchors continues to exercise his First Amendment rights via his own virtually unwatched program and as a guest on other leftist news networks.

Appearing on the Rachel Maddow Show recently, Rather was able to reach an audience likely in double digits. Unsurprisingly, he used the opportunity to decry Republican administrations of yore.

As three major scandals converge on the White House, MSNBC remained true to form and the conversation between Maddow and Rather naturally navigated toward the topic of Richard Nixon.

Rather shared the personal account of a residential burglary he said was the work of  “the notorious plumbers’ operation,” referring to the group Nixon used to halt White House information leaks.

“It was a long time figuring out who did it,” he said, adding, “this became common during the Nixon administration.”

His nostalgia was uneventful by MSNBC standards, though one detail included in his autobiographical account of the story was suspiciously missing from his on air narrative. In his memoirs, Rather claimed he “did what any Texan would do,” describing that he “made sure the family was safe, then grabbed the shotgun.”

I must admit I’m surprised the detail about a gun even made it into his book, but he described the incident in detail through the written word. On camera, though, looking into the wild eyes of Rachel Maddow, Rather neglected to mention that he pointed a loaded and chambered shotgun at a group of what he later learned were GOP operatives.

Honestly, that might be the one target for which Maddow and her deranged audience feel gunfire is warranted.

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

Confederate Corner with George Neat – Benghazi, Watergate and Guns

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, May 14th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about Benghazi and Watergate, because you know… And as usual, there will be a few words about guns, or it just wouldn’t seem like a real show. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Delaware legislature to vote on magazine ban

Delaware is likely to become the next state to ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

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.

 

Confederate Corner with George Neat – Everything is in the Mixed Bag

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, April 30th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: It’s been a crazy week, and George is on the warpath. More gun talk, of course. Plus, some talk about the ATF, military, the Boston Bombing suspects’ family, and wait for it…. PORN. So, be sure to join us for an interesting ride, and of course, there will be the Soldier Salute, and the infamous “Crack Pipe Moment”!

Eric Holder – carrying guns should be like smoking

Before anyone gets really excited, no, Eric Holder didn’t make this comparison recently. This is a blast from the past, found by Breitbart contributor Charles Johnson, and it dates back to 1995:

Wow! So weird seeing Holder with more hair – and no grays!

Anyway, it’s always fun to look at aging political animals when they were younger, and more idealistic – and silly. How in the world could Holder have believed that an ad campaign would be effective in discouraging urban teens from getting involved in gun violence? Even then, it seems that Holder had lost touch with reality, and couldn’t comprehend that one could not compare the status symbol of having a weapon with a simple vice like smoking. It is mind-boggling. And it makes it clear that his current way of thinking is at least deeply rooted. Too bad he didn’t carry that “gun-toting is a vice” attitude with him to the Office of the Attorney General, and too bad he didn’t apply it when it came to drug cartels in Mexico.

H/T Newsbusters

The Interview: Terry McAuliffe & the Boston Attack

This post is intended as satire, any likeness to real or imagined people is unintended. This is a work of fiction

Intimidating pressure cookers like this will be a thing of the past after Democrat Terry McAuliffe becomes Virginia governor.

Intimidating pressure cookers like this will be a thing of the past after Democrat Terry McAuliffe becomes Virginia governor.

(A source within the McAuliffe for Governor campaign leaked a copy of this transcript from an interview with a New York Times Sunday Magazine reporter. I felt I owed it to my readers to give them an advance look at this latest development in the Virginia governor’s race.)

 

NYT REPORTER: Governor McAuliffe, ha, that’s a bit premature, Mr. McAuliffe I could not help noticing at today’s media event that you were surrounded by all the genders of the rainbow, all ages and all races. And what’s more, everyone was wearing jogging clothes and actually smelled a little sweaty. Do you think the symbolism was important for your new legislative agenda?

Terry McAuliffe (D–Flim Flam) candidate for governor in Virginia: (Laughs) Well President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg had already booked the famous Boston marathoners, so we made do with local volunteers and a few of the better kept homeless. I will say we had a few problems convincing the older gentlemen to put on those tiny running shorts, but everyone was a good sport and happy to do a few laps around my indoor track to get in character for the event.

 

NYT: Tell us about this new legislation.

McAuliffe: It’s very simple. This is a problem and I have a government solution. After I’m sworn in, during my first hour as Virginia’s new governor I intend to introduce legislation to implement what I call common–sense pressure cooker control that all American’s can support.

 

NYT: How will it work?

McAuliffe: The centerpiece of the legislation is a one–per–month limit on pressure cooker sales to civilians. Purchasers will be entered into a statewide Culinary Registry where their name will be matched against previous purchases. This is a painless process for shoppers, which we will begin in upscale department stores. If their name comes up as having purchased a pressure cooker less than a month previously, they will be directed to a nice toaster oven or blender. In fact, if they are willing to give us their email address, the state will notify them when they are eligible to again purchase a pressure cooker.

 

NYT: The program will be limited to Bergdorf Goodman and Neiman Marcus?

McAuliffe: Certainly not. I’m aware that good value can be found at Target and something called ‘Big Lots.’ In fact, I intend to close the so–called ‘second–hand loophole.’ We will regulate sales at flea markets and thrift stores. Just because you may ‘no hablo’ doesn’t mean you should not register your purchase. I’ll give the secretary of technology six months to come up with an ‘app’ that will allow Smartphone registration in smaller stores and at garage sales.

 

NYT: So the legislation is just a limit on the number of purchases?

McAuliffe: No, I should have said a comprehensive, common–sense approach. There will also be a limit on the size of pressure cookers. No one really needs one of those high–capacity pressure cookers. Herbert Hoover only promised a single chicken in every pot, not an entire flock. And at our house my cook, Consuela, has never had to use a high–capacity pressure cooker. And that includes the really big fund raising events Bill Clinton attended before he became a vegan.

My kitchen experts also tell me that with the shrinking size of the American family and the distaste professional women display toward cooking, pressure cookers of 3 or possibly 4-quart capacity will be sufficient.

In addition, we also have design guidelines for cookers sold in Virginia. We want manufacturers to cut down on the number of dials and vaguely threatening controls found on some pressure cookers. In my experience newlywed cooking is frightening enough without adding an ominous pressure device to the mix.

 

NYT: Will this legislation have any impact on the Virginia economy?

McAuliffe: Of course I don’t want to do anything that would harm job creation. That’s one of my most popular focus group tested talking points. We certainly don’t want an Obamacare situation here. So there will be a size limit exception for commercial establishments that may require a larger–capacity cooker for their clientele. Right now homeless shelters, soup kitchens, prisons and Old Country Buffett are exempt from both size and purchase limits.

 

NYT: But what about existing large capacity pressure cookers that are already owned?

McAuliffe: The size of the existing pressure cooker market is nothing like that of the gun market, thank goodness. Plus there is no National Cooker Association pressuring gutless legislators. I feel that as inexperienced newlyweds burn things in pressure cookers, divorce papers are filed and just the general wear and tear of moving occur, the large capacity pressure cooker inventory will be reduced to a manageable size.

 

NYT: What about the public health component of your program?

McAuliffe: That’s important, too. The director of the state department of health will be encouraging pediatricians to ask their minor patients if they live in a house that contains pressure cooker and if so where is it stored. It’s important to know who has access to the cookware. We are also considering including a few questions on the amount of salt used in cooking and the presence of trans–fats.

 

NYT: Do you feel these common–sense regulations will remove the threat?

McAuliffe: This will certainly reduce the threat that originates in the kitchen, but at the same time, I don’t want to overlook the delivery system used in the Boston attack. I think the day of large, military–style backpacks is over. Black, camo or other assault backpacks are simply not necessary for civilian transport. When we were all still reeling from the tragedy, I was leaning toward banning backpacks entirely, but when my daughter pointed out the crucial role backpacks play in our education system, I relented.

 

NYT: What backpacks will be allowed in the future?

McAuliffe: We are currently writing the new regulations, but I think most backpacks that feature licensed characters or come from OshKosh B’Gosh, REI or Victoria’s Secret will be allowed, particularly if the backpack has those sexy little stringy straps. I also intend for the state patrol to conduct “backpack buy back” programs where outlawed backpack owners can turn in illegal backpacks in exchange for reusable grocery bags.

 

NYT: How long before Virginians can expect to see a difference?

McAuliffe: As the War on Poverty has proved, no problem that government attacks is really ever solved, but I think this is an important first step. 

Deconstructing Obama’s Alinsky Message On Gun Control

 

President Obama made a very interesting decision on Wednesday by not only appealing to people’s emotions, but also openly demonizing and mocking the NRA and the U.S. Senate for not passing the Manchin-Toomey plan. It is several tactics defined by Saul Alinsky in “Rules For Radicals.”

guns
The first is openly ridiculing the NRA, gun owners and the Republicans (and Democrats) who voted against the measure. By saying, “… instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill…but that didn’t matter. And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators (emphasis mine).

Obama is trying to put the NRA, the GOP and gun owners into a box. It’s an attempt to make them ‘the bad guy,’ and out of the mainstream. He does this again with the, “90 percent of Americans want background checks.”

 

This doesn’t tell the entire truth. There are several Quinnipiac polls showing 90 percent surveyed want background checks, but the question is too simple. The survey doesn’t say who should be doing the checks, whether it was national, state or local. It simply asks whether background checks should be done. This is an important distinction supporters of gun control bills aren’t discussing.

 

However, gun rights advocates haven’t explained this. They are instead going on the defensive, which is what Obama hoped. The NRA is only using the “background checks will do nothing to stop crime,”strategy and raising fears about a national gun registry. These are valid concerns, but won’t work long-term because people will get tired of hearing it. As Alinsky says, “A tactic that drags on too long, becomes a drag.”

 

It’s also helping Obama marginalize them even further. The President can now use another Alinsky rule of, “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Obama can now bring out legitimately hurting families, like those in Newtown and Aurora, to have them push gun control. This tactic puts a face on those who have suffered in horrific tragedies. It makes it easier for the President to point at the NRA and say, “these people are keeping children from being safe.”

 

However, there are ways to use the personalization for gun rights. The best way to do this is bring out the Lone Star College student, who said on live TV, he wished he could have been armed when someone stabbed 14 people. Or have 15-year-old Sarah Merkle talk about gun rights. Or Mark Mattioli who lost his young son at Sandy Hook discuss why new gun laws won’t work. These can be effective push backs against Obama.

 

Obama isn’t going to back off on the push for gun control. While his original attack may have gotten an alternative he was looking for in the Toomey-Manchin plan, that thankfully failed. He, along with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are going to come up with new plans.

 

The NRA and gun rights supporters need to come up with their own plan, using new tactics, to beat it off. Encouraging people to the ballot box is one thing. TV and radio spots work as well. However, it’s important for gun rights supporters to remember to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites to get the word out.

 

 

It’s not over, and while Obama is president, the fight for gun rights may never end.

 

Umbrella Organizations Always Leave Taxpayers Wet

government wasteSen. Tom Coburn (R–OK), a truly great American, has released his annual report on waste, duplication and redundancy in federal programs. Evidently inspecting catfish is both a vital and difficult task, because it currently takes three different federal agencies to do the job. And as soon as someone can reliably map the location of catfish sex organs, TSA is interested in participating, too.

An editorial in The Washington Examiner has more detail, but what’s important for my purpose is the total figure. If the savings recommendations in Coburn’s last three waste reports had been implemented, taxpayers could have saved almost $300 billion. That’s enough to pay for Obama vacations and Joe Biden’s shotgun shells for the rest of their term.

The problem with figures that large is it doesn’t bother the spenders because it’s not their money and it depresses the taxpayer because he can’t imagine how one would obtain such a sum or make a dent in paying for it.

But don’t despair. We have a waste and duplication situation in Prince William County, VA — where I live — that is easy to comprehend, since it’s one thousandth the size of the fed’s situation, and will give useful training in the art of not wasting taxpayer dollars, because the situation is replicated all across the US.

Currently the county pays almost $300,000 in annual dues to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government. There are 22 governing bodies that participate and the organization is supposed to have a unified voice on area matters that include police, fire, transportation, homeland security, growth planning and environmental concerns. There is probably a similar organization near where you live.

The WaPost describes the group thusly, “Politically, the council’s members range from very liberal Democrats to tea party Republicans. It’s able to get things done by sticking to non-controversial issues. Those include collecting traffic data and improving communications among emergency personnel after shortcomings were revealed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”

What this means is the only projects COG supports are those no one in their right mind would oppose anyway. So why are PWC taxpayers sending $300,000 a year to an organization that does what PWC elected officials are already paid to do anyway? Can’t our homegrown pols represent our interests?

These area umbrella organizations (there’s an apt metaphor: taxpayers get soaked while the organization employees are high and dry) only serve as resume builders for politicians who are eager to move up the electoral ladder and “showing leadership” on a regional basis looks impressive to gullible reporters. COG only serves to increase the size of government and the busybodies it enables.

Until quite recently, if a PWC politician wanted to adhere to a genuine conservative philosophy and withdraw from COG he would have been roasted as a know–nothing reactionary. But that was then, COG, thanks to the hubris of its leftist Democrat members, has now given conservative jurisdictions an excellent reason to withdraw and stop paying dues.

Last month the COG board of directors — with three leftist Dems in charge — voted in favor of calling for a federal ban on assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets, a firearm purchase waiting period and tracing of guns. In MD, DC and Alexandria supporters broke out in drum circles to celebrate. But PW, Loudoun and Frederick counties and Manassas leaders were outraged and collectively threatened to withhold more than $500,000 in dues.

These Virginians said the board had overstepping its bounds and the policy was “inappropriate and disrespectful” of the views of individual localities. Regional cooperation did not include passing federal law and revising the Constitution and was not why COG was created.

It makes you wonder doesn’t it? For that matter, what is COG’s position on Joe Biden’s warning shot or Michelle’s bangs?

The PWC Board of Supervisors was angry enough to pass a resolution opposing COG’s gun control advocacy, with only one member voting against. Frank Principi (D–Ambitious) is one of two PWC members of the COG board and the former COG chairman. Principi didn’t bother to attend the meeting where the gun resolution was passed, but he did find time to vote against the county’s resolution condemning it.

Principi claims he supports the 2nd Amendment — as long as it’s confined to a dusty old parchment — but he didn’t want the board to “pile on.” Principi — a noted profile in political courage in his own mind — blamed politicians who are angling for statewide office for making the COG resolution an issue. What Principi didn’t say was that if he had voted in favor of the county resolution it would have been the kiss of death in a Democrat primary, where the vote would be characterized as ‘caving in to the NRA.’

Feeling the heat, COG backtracked last Wednesday and rescinded the resolution and returned the issue to a committee for further study.  Principi was motivated enough to actually attend that meeting where he voted in favor of both. This is fine, a positive step, but PWC should still head for the door. There are plenty of areas in the county where 300 grand would be better spent.

Fairfax County Board Chairman Sharon Bulova (D–Left), still surprised by the uproar, commented, “I’m hopeful we can find some language, some middle ground, where COG can be a voice on this issue of gun violence, gun safety, safety in our schools and mental health. All of these are appropriate subjects for COG to discuss and come to some consensus on.”

I could not agree more. How about passing a resolution honoring a Fairfax County organization called the National Rifle Association? It’s been doing excellent work on all these issues for years.

« Older Entries