Of all our liberties, the Left hates this one the most

Matt at Conservative Hideout makes the case and explains why the Left so loathes gun rights

That state of passive captivity is exactly where the state wants all of us.  And, the political left attempt to create this by use of the Alinsky Method.  People that dissent, believe in freedom, and such are singled out and destroyed.  They are harassed in public, and in their own homes.  Their children and tracked and harassed.  They receive death threats, false lawsuits are filed.  Basically, the target is relentlessly isolated and attacked until they submit.  They want the target to submit and be passive, and they want to people witnessing it to not get any bright ideas about having independent thoughts of their own.  Also, when children are singled out for punishment in school for being Christian, or c0llege students are threatened with failing grades for not embracing the “tolerance” of the regressives. we see the isolation and attack mode that seeks to create passive sheeple, and punish those that stand up.

How this applies to gun control is simple.  A firearm provides a sense of security and confidence.  As the old saying goes, “God made man, but Samuel  Colt made them equal.”  Meaning, that it became very difficult to intimidate and subjugate a man that is armed.  It is a catalyst for independence, as when a human can defend themselves, they will stand up to the state, community organizers, or union goons.  It’s the “emboldening agent” that could be applied to the picture.  It’s the great equalizer of our Republic. It is the counterbalance to tyranny; the gun owner is confident, and the one(s) that would attack him are wary.  It doesn’t matter that the gun owner cannot impose his will on others, as others cannot impose their will on him.  There is a certain reciprocity there, as all sides are potentially “equal” in terms of their power to protect themselves.

If you will notice, we see stories about union attacks, andcommunity organizers intimidating people far more in urban areas.  Why is this?  I think most of you will understand why.  In the cities, there are more gun control laws, so these thugs have less of a chance of being confronted by an armed citizen.  In the suburbs, and especially in rural areas, the thug’s shenanigans would be confronted with the sound on dozens of “metallic clicks.”  It’s hard to intimidate someone that can fight back, even if he or she is outnumbered (or, unless the government limits the amount of bullets that go in magazines).

Go read the whole thing, It is quite insightful, and dead on accurate. as I often say, the Collectivist Left despises anything that supports Individualism, and individual liberty, nothing does more to those ends than the right to own firearms.

Yes, Mr. Liberal Whiny Pants, you DO have every right to be butt hurt over my guns

Over at Bearing Arms, Bob Owens cites a piece written, likely in Crayola, at The Huffington Post. The author of the drivel, Tom Harvey, proudly announces his right to be offended because I, and others own guns

I Have a Right to Hate Guns

Well, that is true Mr. Harvey, you DO have the right to hate guns, thank you for discovering what should have been obvious to anyone

I’m not sure that I do; it’s not that simple; but I certainly have the right and plenty of reason. I shouldn’t have to hide my position. I should be free to state it clearly, directly and simply and say:

No one is asking you to “hide” your positions. the fact that you must face, sir, is that most Americans disagree with you. See, your right to bless us with your infinite wisdom, is no different than our right to tell you to get stuffed. Liberals like you never seem to grasp that the whole freedom of speech thing cuts both ways.

• It’s much too easy for people of bad will or unstable emotions to become armed and dangerous and we should take the strong action needed to stop it.

Well, Mr. Harvey, it IS easy for people who will steal or buy guns on the black market, no law will stop them. Perhaps you should write your Congressman, and Senator and ask them why the vast majority of people who tried to buy a  gun and were denied by the background check are never questioned by authorities. Again, you call for laws, but say nothing of laws NOT enforced. Do you think more laws that will likely be unenforced will do one damn thing to make anyone safer?

• It is the responsibility of gun owners to prove that their activities do not create a danger to the public and submit to whatever regulation is needed to enforce that.

So, what government agency would you place in charge of choosing which American set to exercise their constitutional rights? How would we prove our “activities” do not pose a danger exactly? And what activities would be approved? I question if you actually thought at all before writing such an absurd idea down. I also would question if you can prove that your writing does not pose some threat? Surely you must think, and I use that word think reluctantly, that all of our liberties should be deemed “safe” by Big Brother.

• Unless one has an exceptional need, the risks of having guns far outweigh the benefits, making gun possession unwise for nearly everyone.

Mr. Harvey, have you one shred of credible evidence that supports this asinine claim? The fact is there are tens upon tens of millions of gun owners in America. The vast majority never harm anyone with them. It is also true that tens of thousands of Americans USE our guns in self-defense annually. Millions of Americans have concealed carry licenses, and despite the fantasies of people like you, those gun carriers cause ZERO harm to anyone, except of course, the many times they have stopped bad guys, and hurt the feelings of overly emotional people like you.

• Notwithstanding Antonin Scalia’s bogus logic, the Second Amendment only establishes a collective right.

Ah, here we are, back to the root of your problem sir. You are a Collectivist. Those individual rights are troublesome to you, as they always are to those who frown upon the very idea that there is an inherent human right to keep and bear arms. Where you get the notion that the second amendment applies only to a collective right I cannot say, but I will allow George Mason, known as the Father of said amendment answer. I also include some quotes from other Founders

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington) 

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) 

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) 

I left the last one last so that it be made VERY clear that the Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL rights Mr. Harvey, not Collective rights. That document protects the individual from tyrants, and the tyranny of the majority, and from people like you who hold their feelings in higher esteem than they do God-given liberties!

Our schools as re-education camps

I am one who believes that history, actual history, as it happened is not taught in our schools. I also believe that not enough attention is given to the founding of the nation. I also believe, and have for years, that the goal of government schools is not so much education as indoctrination. Moonbattery has another example that shows me, to be correct

Liberals like the idea of a “living Constitution” — that is, a Constitution that says whatever they want it to say at the moment. Here is what the Second Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here is what advocates of statist tyranny want it to say:

falsified-2nd-amendment

Horrifyingly, the falsified version above was taken from United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. From Amazon:

This text is designed for a one-semester or one-year United States history course for students preparing to take the AP U.S. History Exam. Teachers can assign the book as the course textbook or as a supplement to a college-level textbook.

Looking over the picture, I saw the butchering of the First Amendment too, adding the “separation of church and state” which is NOT in the Bill of Rights. God only knows how many other falsehoods are in that book.

Just another reason to either home school your kids, or to at least talk to your kids about history.  As much as we tout education in America, we forget that the goal of education should be to impart knowledge, not propaganda. 

God Bless Mississippi!

Two words I love to say are now the law in the Magnolia State. Open carry!

While everyone was watching news in Colorado during the final weeks of the recalls, Mississippi was instituting a new law to allow the open carry of firearms without a concealed carry permit. 

House Bill 2 was passed in Mississippi’s last legislative session and signed into law by Governor Phil Bryant (R), but put on hold in July when Circuit Judge Winston Kidd issued an injunction to have the legislature “clarify it.” 

On August 29 the Mississippi Supreme Court “unanimously upheld the… open carry law,” setting the stage for it to take effect.

Fox News carried the Mississippi Supreme Court’s ruling:

This court now finds that the circuit judge erred as a matter of law when he found House Bill 2 vague, and therefore, unconstitutional. He also erred when he stated that ‘a reasonable person reading the bill could not discern what the allows and what it prohibits.’

State representative Andy Gipson (R-Braxton) sponsored House Bill 2. He says the ability of law-abiding citizens to openly carry firearms for self-defense “confirms, in a very real sense, the right to keep and bear arms.”

Adding to this, Governor Bryant said House Bill 2 reaffirms the right to keep and bear arms not only as set forth in the Bill of Rights, but also in Mississippi’s constitution. 

Ah, yes, the Constitution!

 

Did gun rights “snooker” Democrats?

Via Weasel Zippers

Via Washington Times:

A prominent gun-rights advocate claims his group’s staff was in the room during the drafting of the recently unveiled proposal to expand gun-purchase background checks and said that “we snookered the other side — they haven’t figured it out yet.”

Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, made the remarks at a speech in Portland, Ore., on Friday, according to video captured by the group Daylight Disinfectant.

Mr. Gottlieb said that despite claims to the contrary, the amendment that would expand checks to sales online and at gun shows is “not registration” and went on to list a host of gun-rights protections in the measure, such as allowing interstate handgun sales for dealers and protections for veterans, for example.

“It’s a Christmas tree,” Mr. Gottlieb said. “We just hung a million ornaments on it.”

“We’re taking the background check and making it a pro-gun bill,” he added. “Unfortunately, some of my colleagues haven’t quite figured it out yet because they weren’t sitting in the room writing it,” he continued. “My staff was. I’ll be perfectly candid about it. This will probably break on Monday in the Wall Street Journal.”

Well, we shall see. Maybe the GOP has finally outwitted the Democrats, for once. But, why announce it? why start crowing about is already? 

 

New York Governor calls gun control opponents paranoid, extremists

Your Marxist Moron of the Day

Gov. Andrew Cuomo dismissed the latest lawsuit against the state’s new gun control law, the SAFE Act, as “propaganda” that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is using to keep its members in line.

“I think the paralysis in Washington on this issue is sad, frankly. If this nation doesn’t get it after Newtown, Connecticut … people all across the nation are begging their government to respond,” Cuomo, a Democrat, told Susan Arbetter on “The Capitol Pressroom.”

“What the extremists do is spread fear and unrealistic theories of conspiracies and the citizenry that needs to be armed because the government is possibly tyrannical, and they need their arms to defend themselves against the tyrannical government,” Cuomo continued. This is true: at gun rallies, I’ve heard this “slippery slope” line of argument from multiple attendees. They view the right to bear arms as a kind of check against government power.

Gov. Cuomo is a fine one to be slinging mud. What he is is a thug. Really no better than the slime ball who tried to rob me years ago. If not for my being armed that night, who knows what would have happened. To me, that punk and Cuomo are two sides of the same coin. No, Gov. Cuomo will never try to rob me in an alley. But he is all too willing to rob everyone he can of their most basic human right, the right of self-defense. Of course, I am sure Cuomo would lecture me on my “needs”. Well, I am sure it is easy for a man surrounded by armed security to not see the need of  a common American to have firearms for self-defense. As far as Cuomo calling anyone who opposes his unconstitutional law extreme? Statists like Cuomo despise liberty, and Individualism and consider anyone who does not wish to be dependent on the State an extremist, so, that is a badge of honor. Oh and one more thing……….

a15 AR-Rosa-Parks

I think the Founders would approve

The Founders would use more eloquent language, but I think A Nod to the Gods has captured their spirit here

a15

 

 

 

 

 

 

To those who will argue that I should use more “respectful” language I would pose one question. Do those miscreants seeking to deprive Americans of the right of self-defense have “respect” for our rights, or for the Constitution? Do they respect the truth when they deliberately lie about the number of times Americans use firearms to defend themselves? Do they respect honest debate when they seek to ram through legislation that would limit, or eliminate entirely my God-given natural rights? Do they show me any respect when they paint me, and other gun owners as nuts? Do they show us respect when they falsely seek to blame us for horrific tragedies like Newtown? The answer is no. So, why do I owe tyrants, seeking to rob my natural rights any damned respect?

 

——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Ed’s interjection:

Indeed, “fuck you” is the very sentiment which spawned this great nation. If it hadn’t been for our forefathers’ “fuck you” mentality, the Boston Tea Party never would have happened. Saying “fuck you” to authority is what America is all about. In fact, the U.S. citizenry is the most profoundly “fuck you”-oriented society on Earth… by tradition. Hell, “fuck you” was the thought that finally motivated Rosa Parks to move to the front of the bus. Our general “fuck you” attitude has helped sustain us as a people for generations, and if by chance you don’t happen to agree with everything I just wrote, then “fuck you” too!

Vanity Fair writer goes berserk launches boycott against The Other McCain

Guess that will teach McCain not to poke fun of goofy haircuts. Such things enrage writers at places like Vanity Fair, who automatically launch into Super Emoting Mode

Thursday I posted a “coming out” video by a mopey kid with a bad haircut. This evidently enraged a Vanity Fair writer:

Thu, February 21, 2013 7:38 PM
From: KURT EICHENWALD <kurtewald@me.com>
To: Chris Smith <smitty1e@gmail.com>; “r.s.mccain@att.net” <r.s.mccain@att.net>
Subject: you are both despicable

I will address you both as adults, even though you clearly are not. The fact that you could use your site to make fun of an abused, frightened teenager is the most abhorrent thing I have ever seen by supposed “professional” commentators. Your decision that this kid was a fake was the type of arrogance I would expect to see from a 5th grader, not an adult. If you have nothing better to do than direct derision and contempt towards a child, then maybe you should stop pretending you are anything more than bullies who have nothing better to do with their lives.
You deserve all of the contempt possible. And hopefully, you will pay a price for your arrogance and immaturity.
Kurt Eichenwald

Not content with that, he followed up with this:

Thu, February 21, 2013 8:01 PM
Re: you are both despicable
From: KURT EICHENWALD <kurtewald@me.com>
To: Chris Smith <smitty1e@gmail.com>; “r.s.mccain@att.net” <r.s.mccain@att.net>
Oh, and by the way, you immature bastards….
I have invited my 7,000 twitter followers to contact your advertisers and demand they stop advertising with your site. And they’re doing it.
Have a nice life. You bastards.

Well, this was certainly a charming introduction to Kurt Eichenwald, and he is a man of his word, because a few hours later, one of our advertisers forwarded to me this e-mail:

Subject: your add on a hate site
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:00:11 -0600
From: KURT EICHENWALD <kurtewald@me.com>
To: [REDACTED]
You are currently advertising on a site called http://theothermccain.com. In the last two days, these “adults” took a youtube video of a young gay teen who was both coming out and revealing abuse he has been suffering at the hands of his mother and not only made fun of him (for his haircut!), but invited their followers to do the same. The followers happily complied. This site does not represent your values. Moreover, this child is clearly depressed and discussed the times he considered suicide. If the torment of these “adults” on this site contributes to the boy acting on those feelings, you would not want to have any connection to it.
Many thanks.
Kurt Eichenwald
Contributing Editor
Vanity Fair
914-552-2588

Go read it all, Stacy McCain, A.K.A. Stupid Haircut Hater makes some good points. This kid DID go public with this, so he made it public. And, yes, a bit of cynicism is not a bad thing

The thought occurred to me that (a) the kid is basically inviting everybody to attend his pity party, and (b) our sarcastic commenters were likely to say rude things about him.

The video already had nearly 20,000 views in barely a week and — in case this didn’t cross anybody else’s mind – that translates to a bit of YouTube advertising revenue for young Austin Gates. So he’s like a professional pity-party event planner or something.

Are his tales of abuse and suicidal thoughts true? Has anyone verifiedhis story? “If your mother says she loves you, check it out,” but if a kid says his mother hates him, don’t bother, eh?

Habitual cynicism, that’s my problem. Having been a teenage hoodlum myself, I see a video like that and instantly think: “Scam.”

Kid’s probably hustling contributions to buy himself some weed. Or maybe he’s angling for a guest spot on daytime TV talk shows, maybe even a reality TV series deal. For all we know, the minute the video ended, Austin Gates was high-fiving his buddies: “How was that, huh? Did you like that whiny thing I did at the end about suicide? Hey, man, fire up the bong and let’s burn some buds.”

We’re not supposed to think that way anymore, I guess. It’s “bullying” to see a mopey kid and say, “Stop moping — and get a haircut!”

If this kid has gone through the things he describes, then I feel for him. I would not wish that on any kid. And I hope he gets whatever help he needs to get past it Some might accuse Stacy McCain of being insensitive, and maybe that is fair. But, from what I know of the man I doubt he would deliberately add to anyone’s pain. And, in a larger sense, I abhor these boycotts. They smack of censorship, and totalitarianism to me. So maybe Kurt Eichenwald ought to wait and see what all the facts are? And maybe everyone who loves free speech, and making fun of bad haircuts should contact Kurt Eichenwald 914-552-2588, and let him know!

 

Do Conservative Bloggers have to think of EVERYTHING?

Doug Powers, Austin’s brother, notes that the pro-gun rights arguments need to change to match the emotionalism in the anti-gun rights side. And he is right. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee has been having hearings on gun control. On the pro gun control side, Gabby Giffords, victim of a crazed gunman, said “too many children are dying.” At a hearing in Connecticut, the father of a child murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary gave similar testimony (and gave some in the blinded-by-bias media a chance to show off their mad video editing skillz).

And on the pro Second Amendment side we most often hear testimony from Wayne LaPierre, somebody else from the NRA, or lawyers arguing on behalf of the Second Amendment. They make arguments on constitutional grounds and even speak about people whose lives are saved because they had guns — but where arethose people? Ask them to come forward at hearings and press conferences.

Let’s face it, the left usually kicks the right’s ass when it comes to emotional arguments that are designed to tug at the heart so aggressively that onlookers are too distracted to use their heads to think through what’s actually being presented to them (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing as we pride ourselves on being on the side of reason). However, emotional arguments can be constructed without selling out on the logic and common sense end of things, and that’s where the right needs to do a better job.

There certainly are no shortages of children (and adults) whose lives have been saved because of gun ownership. Almost every day there’s a story. Here’s one from just the day before yesterday:

A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.

Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night.

“I threw the cover over my son and I took off running, screaming to the living room to let my dogs out,” she said.

Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.

The woman had a gun — at least two actually — and it didn’t end well for one of the criminals. The other two fled, and the mother and her son were unharmed as a result.

Powers is right, we could find literally thousands of Americans whose lives have been saved because  they, or a friend, parent or neighbor was armed. Does this not seem the perfect way to fight back against the Left’s Emotionally based testimonies? Of course it does, because it is. So why has the leadership of the NRA, or Republican Congressmen not thought of it? Or maybe I should ask, why have they chosen NOT to go that direction since surely it has been suggested to them. I mean honestly, this is one of the biggest issues the Right faces. Too often the best arguments, ideas, etc come from people like Doug Powers, and other Conservative bloggers. Are we just that much smarter than our “leaders”? Or are we more intent on fighting? Do they fear unvarnished Conservatism?  What are they thinking? Seems too often they are thinking about not losing, rather than about winning.

 

Dear Governor Andrew “SCREAMIN” Cuomo

funny-picture-gorilla-flipping-the-bird1

Gun owners in New York have a message for you, you pathetic tragedy pimp

New York Governor Cuomo the Junior may have rushed throughhis new gun control law with such speed thatpolice will avoid its restrictions only through the blessed miracle ofselective enforcement, but he may have a little trouble getting the state’s firearms owners to attend his party. The new law requires owners of those scary-looking rifles known as “assault weapons” to register their property (amidst assurances that, oh no, the registration lists will never be used for confiscation), but gun rights activists are actively urging gun owners to defy the new mandate.

According to Frederic Dicker at the New York Post:

Assault-rifle owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,” The Post has learned.

Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history.

“I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said Brian Olesen, president of the American Shooters Supply, one of the largest gun dealers in the state.

Dicker quotes a Cuomo administration official admitting, “Many of these assault-rifle owners aren’t going to register; we realize that.” Which means that state officials were merely posturing rather than entirely ignorant of history when they penned the law and jammed it through. As I’ve written before, gun laws traditionally breed massive levels of non-compliance — even in places where you might think people have no strong history of personal arms, or of resistance to the state, When Germany imposed gun registration in 1972, the country’s officials managed to get paperwork on all of 3.2 million firearms out of an estimated 17-20 million guns in civilian hands. Californians may have registered as many as ten percent of the “assault weapons” they owned when that state imposed registration in 1990 (though the New York Times put the figure rather lower, at about 7,000 out of an estimated 300,000 guns covered by the law).

 

Another Day, another Marxist Moron

And today, it is Danny Glover, spouting the latest Leftist propaganda on gun rights. Billy Bob has the details

You know the actor Danny Glover, right? The guy from Lethal Weapon, with Mel Gibson? Umm, he might be retarded. Or maybe he has done some bad narcotics. I’m not sure exactly, but something is wrong with the guy.

This is what he said to a group of students at Texas A&M recently…

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” he continued.

This is one of the lies being spread around right now by the Neo-Marxists who are pushing gun control. It is an effort to discredit the Founders, and the second amendment. The Founders were VERY clear on gun rights, do not fall for this load of BS!

 

Jim Hines-(Doofus) blasts Rick Perry for believing in self-defense

Rick Perry is as solid for gun rights as there is, so, of course, ultra Liberals are going to attack him for it. Jim Hines of Connecticut went well past simply disagreeing with the Texas governor however, saying that Perry has “blood on his hands”

The stats, of course, back Perry up and refute the whining Rep. Hines, who puts his faith in Liberal feelings based legislation rather than in the wisdom of the Founders. But, Hines’ remarks are typical of the hate-filled rhetoric we have been hearing from the Left the past week. They have taken their campaign of demonization to new lows. Sadly, Democrats use to at least attempt debate, now, though, it is vile personal attack and baseless allegations. Frankly, in their lust for political power, Liberals would rather smear their opponents, and ignore evidence that proves their fascination with gun control is an abject failure, than actually try to prevent future mass shootings.

 

Ah, in Liberal Fairy Tale Land no one ever kills anyone with a knife, a club, or any other weapon. People ONLY die if a gun is involved

I have enjoyed Jason Whitlock, a sports writer, I have enjoyed a number of his columns. I have not always agreed with his take, but, his latest piece, written in response to Javon Belcher’s murder and suicide is a perfect example of how Liberals live in an alternate reality.

I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We’ve come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.

How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn’t protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.

In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

See, ONLY guns are used to commit murder. Whitlock just KNOWS that if belcher had not had a gun, he would never have stabbed his girlfriend, or strangled her, or beat her to death with a tire iron because in Whitlock’s world, that NEVER happens. If not for guns, well  all violence would stop I suppose. Ah, but that fantasy is not the only one that exists in the mind of Whitlock

That is the message I wish Chiefs players, professional athletes and all of us would focus on Sunday and moving forward. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.

But we won’t. We’ll watch Sunday’s game and comfort ourselves with the false belief we’re incapable of the wickedness that exploded inside Jovan Belcher Saturday morning.

See, handguns NEVER enhance our safety. Whitlock knows this because, well, he wants it to be that way. Of course, when I stepped into the alley behind the restaurant I ran in 1998, Jason Whitlock was not there to defend me from the thug hiding behind the fire escape. Neither was any other Liberal. But for that Colt .45 I had, I would have been a victim. Years before I was born, my grandmother answered a knock at her screen door. A man claiming to work for the phone company said he needed to check her phone. She told him no, and he proceeded to come through the door. And you know what, Jason Whitlock, was not there, but my grandfathers rifle was, and her pointing that rifle at the would be intruder seemed to have a stark impact on that intruders mindset. Just last week, in Grand Prairie, Texas, a few miles from where I live, a thug decided to break into a home there. Was Jason Whitlock and his moral outrage there to stop him. No, but, the homeowners 40 caliber handgun was, and it was the thug that was shot, not the homeowner.

So, perhaps Mr. Whitlock should do a bit of research into defensive gun uses. Of course, that would require a bit of thinking, rather than emoting, that might be too much for Whitlock.

 

 

Well, there is some sanity in Illinois after all

 

Via Shall Not Be Questioned comes this nugget from a statement by the Illinois Attorney General

Our message is this: we will no longer use the power and authority of our office to criminalize and punish decent, otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise the rights granted to them by the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.

Wow, I love the sound of that. Of course, the Left is flipping out and mashing the panic button to beat the band I ESPECIALLY love this tweet

.@SebastianSNBQ We oppose anyone & everyone who flouts our Constitution & takes the law into their own hands. And we always will.

Aha, so NOW the gun grabbers give a rat’s ass about the Constitution? The same Constitution they actively seek to destroy where the 2nd amendment is concerned? I like this quote from the link, it really sums up the real priorities of the gun control zealots

This is what they are freaking out about. It’s not criminals possessing guns, it’s not drug dealers possessing guns — they are freaking out because a prosecutor has declared he’s not going to try to put otherwise law-abiding, honest people in prison.

BINGO! In the demented minds of these folks, armed Americans who defend themselves with a gun are a bigger threat than actual criminals.

H/T to Bill Quick who is quite pleased too

 

Actor better known as a character he played goes on Twitter rant, garners Marxist Moron Award!

If I told you Jason Alexander went on a Tea Party/Conservative bashing tirade you would say WHO? But is I say that George Costanza went on a Twitter tirade you would say, OH, that guy! Read what he wrote, THEN listen to my response!

Via Jason Alexander

George Costanza

George Costanza (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’d like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday’s victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre.

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. [...]

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.

OK folks, time to take Georgie to the woodshed, I have had more than my fill of Constitutionally ignorant buffoons calling Conservatives “terrorists” So click the pic to listen

Hypocrisy overload in 3, 2, 1…..

China, you know RED, as in COMMUNIST China, as in no liberty, China, as in FORCED abortions China, has now called the United States a violater of human rights. Why? Well we actually allow people to own firearms

A report issued by the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China has included U.S. gun ownership among a list of  human rights violations, Law Enforcement Examiner Jim Kouri reported yesterday.  “The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2011″ was published last Friday on the PRC’s Consulate General in New York website.

“The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership,” the report claims. “The U.S. people hold between 35 percent and 50 percent of the world’ s civilian-owned guns, with every 100 people having 90 guns [and] 47 percent of American adults reported that they had a gun.”

Odd how much Communists in China sound like the gun grabbers here in American isn’t it? Think about that as you read this next part

The conclusion that gun bans will result in enhanced protection of lives and personal security flies in the face of both the American and Chinese experience. Predictably, the report presents many of the same cherry-picked arguments used by “leading” U.S. and international “gun control” organizations that totally ignore the protective benefits of arms in private hands.  And, as typical with advocates of a centralized monopoly of violence, Chinese-style genocide, which resulted in government-caused deaths of unknown tens of millions of defenseless human beings in the 20th Century, and the current brutal occupation and tyrannical suppression of Tibetan sovereignty, is left unacknowledged. Left unsaid is the inconvenient truth that rendering captive populations unable to resist makes such monstrous crimes against humanity not only possible, but inevitable.

Remember this, gun control is not about guns, it is about CONTROL!

A look into Obama’s gun grabbing agenda

Gun control has become a back burner issue. Liberals seldom harp on taking away our guns as they once did. But, despite their new silence, the Left still wants us disarmed. Maggie’s Notebook has a good piece that sheds some light on this

Had you forgotten, or perhaps never knew that Barack Obama was director of the “non-profit charitable” Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002? Along with “education,” one of their focuses is gun control which they charaterize as “gun violence.” Never mind that a gun can’t be “violent” without a person being violent first. Barack Obama worked diligently to take down the Second Amendment. There was a clear path for doing this at Joyce. They targeted future Supreme Court decisions and began funding lies and deceptive law articles about the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Go read it all, and also check out this piece, about the possibility of the government seizing your property

Agenda 21 was the only document that was not an international treaty. It was, instead, a non-binding “soft-law” document that was designed to avoid the necessity of Congressional debate or Senate ratification. Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) — especially to implement Agenda 21 administratively — without oversight or interference from Congress. The agencies of government have done a masterful job of infecting almost all urban communities with some form of government control under the guise of “Sustainable Development,” which is the objective of Agenda 21.

Now, the Obama regime intends to impose the same kind of control over rural America through his White House Rural Council, also created by Executive Order.

The rather bland 18-page Convention on Biological Diversity came with an 1140-page instruction book called the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Page 993 of this instruction book says that the Convention’s plan for protecting biodiversity is “…central to the Wildlands Project recently-proposed in the United States.” Page 15 of the Wildlands Project says:

… at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones … assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone.

Yes, indeed our rights are fading away

Robert lays it out for all to see

Across this nation our 2nd amendment rights have been taken. Our rights to bear arms which were written in the bill of rights to PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE from tyranny of government, have been neutered. We can’t (In some states) possess AUTOMATIC firearms. We can’t have magazines over 10 rounds, we must “Register” our firearms with the government, we must wait ten days for the okay from Government before we can get a firearm. We can not carry the firearm loaded on our person without big brothers acceptance.. The list goes on.

Some of the laws that have been passed in certain states make sense to some. To me, I’d just as soon see EVERYONE carrying a gun. The playing field would be more level than it is now. The questions seems to be “Why do you need a gun?” or “Why do you need a magazine that holds that many bullets?” or Why do you need to carry a gun?” these questions are ridiculous on their face but they are the very questions being asked by the grabbers.