I grew up on or around military bases. My father proudly served in the Air Force for 22 years. As a result, I grew up with an awareness of the "Red Menace" of the time. I can recall alerts being held on the base where my father grabbed a suitcase and headed off to work to protect this country from that threat. I also vividly remember the days when we were taught to "Duck and Cover" because an attack by the Communists was imminent.
A week after my graduation from high school in 1979, I joined the Navy. The oath I took that day, stated clearly that I swore to "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". This same oath has been in use since 1962. There is not a clause in that oath that limits me from defending the Constitution after my discharge from the service. It is time for every American to accept that same responsibility.
My first duty station was Midway Island. At the time, Midway was part of the SOSUS net that was used in an attempt to track Russian submarines. My next duty station was the USS Brooke (FFG-1). Our primary mission was anti-submarine warfare against those same Communists.
From the end of World War II, our government was intent on preventing the spread of Communism. We fought a war in Vietnam to aid them in warding off this menace, we sent aid in a number of forms to other countries in an effort to help them. Our own congressmen held witch hunts to rid our country of this threat. Apparently, at one point, the thought of a Socialist country scared the hell out of most Americans. What has changed?
According to Wikipedia, "Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended"
The reason I bring all this up is there is an alarming trend in Washington right now. Our government is trying to shove a socialist agenda down our throats. First we have the feds taking over private industry. The second agenda item is the attempt to bypass the Constitution and legislate that a citizen is required to purchase health care.
From early on in the campaign, BHO has pushed this Socialist agenda. In his now infamous discussion with "Joe the Plumber", BHO stated "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody". Now I may not be the brightest bulb in the hallway, but that statement alone reeks of a Socialist view. Just what "wealth" was BHO planning on spreading around? Simply put, the wealth of those who have worked hard to achieve success.
To achieve this goal, BHO has managed to populate the inner circle with Socialists and Communists. Some of his closest advisers have been quoted as stating the admiration that they have for Mao Tse-Tung. Remember chairman Mao? He murdered millions of his own countrymen. Such a great person to admire. Remember, he was also arming the North Vietnamese to fight against us in Vietnam.
Among those professing their love for Mao is Anita Dunn, the now former White House Communication Director. She so admires that fine humanitarian Mao, that she explained that love in a speech to high school students. She touted the fact that he siezed control of the country without the backing of the military and against all odds. She went on to state that she often turns to the teachings of Mao as one of her "favorite political philosophers". Hmm...let's see if I understand some of this "great" philosophy...implement a regime that provides a communist/socialist agenda, kill those who oppose you, treat women as second-class citizens, eliminate the rights of the people, close the borders and prohibit your people from leaving the oppression...I think that about sums up some of the key points.
Apparently Mao is so revered in our government that a Christmas ornament bearing his picture adorns one of the Christmas trees in the White House. Kind of ironic, here is the likeness of a Communist on a tree in Washington. Last I read about the Communists, they are atheists, to have Mao's picture on a tree that celebrates the birth of Christ is ludicrous to say the least. Add to it that Christmas is typically considered a time of peace and goodwill toward your fellow humans and it becomes even more ridiculous.
To put this gently, the Commies are in the wire...they are walking among us. To use a quote from BHO himself right before the election, "five days from now we will fundamentally change America". WOW...this administration (maybe that should be regime), is trying to do just that, turn us into a nation of Socialists where the government is there to take care of you from cradle to grave. Uncle Barack will be there to take the hard-earned wealth from others and give it to those with the entitlement mentality because "when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody".
Wake up America! We don't need to be "fundamentally changed". The Constitution that our founding fathers built here has worked damned well for 220 years. It affirms our freedoms and liberties while limiting where the line is that the government need not cross in our personal lives. We successfully built a world power and a lifestyle that is the envy of others around the world. What needs to be changed?
The elections in 2010 cannot come soon enough in my opinion. Remember Lincoln's statement "government for the people by the people". Those in Washington work for us, and it is time to remind them of that fact or put them back on the streets.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
ILLEGAL Immigrants
OK, let me throw my cards on the table here. I am not politically correct...I speak my mind and tend not to worry all that much about offending others. Now that the cards are out there, let me clarify the oft misused term of "undocumented workers". While that is a PC way of stating that someone is in this country ILLEGALLY, it also glosses over the fact that these people are criminals. They are beginning their quest for citizenship by breaking our laws.
And while we are on the subject of ILLEGAL immigrants, let's take a look at some numbers and how they are impacting our collapsing economy. According to an April 15, 2009 news story in the Washington Post, the number of ILLEGAL immigrants is estimated to be "10.4 million adults and 1.5 million foreign-born children". Add to this number the estimated 4 million offspring of these ILLEGALS that have been born here and now can enjoy citizenship and we have a whopping 15.9 million people in this country that do not belong here.
Let's take the number of adults, many of whom are employed in some fashion here in the U.S. (BTW, it is also ILLEGAL to hire the ILLEGAL immigrants). According the the Bureau of Labor statistics, there are 14.4 million unemployed Americans as of November 2009.
Let's do a bit of simple math here...14.4 million unemployed minus the 10.4 million jobs that the ILLEGALS are holding down equals 4.4 million total people that would remain unemployed if the ILLEGALS weren't here stealing jobs. Wow...even with my poor math skills, that looks like a simple way to drop the unemployment rate by about 2/3rds.
Now let's factor in a few other items that are impacting our economy by the ILLEGALS. Many of these CRIMINALS earn money here in the U.S. and then promptly ship it out to family and friends in their home country. Therefore, simple deductive reasoning would indicate that money that is earned here and then shipped out of the country is lost to the economy here and benefits the foreign economy and not ours.
According to an article on gallup.com (9/22/2009) , "According to the World Bank, Mexico received more than $25 billion in remittances in 2007; a great deal of this money came from the U.S.". So first we have the impact of the loss of jobs for the citizens of this country combined with the loss of $25 billion that is shipped to Mexico alone.
None of the above takes into consideration the ancillary costs that these ILLEGALS are costing each and every one of the taxpayers in this country through the social services these ILLEGALS are using every day...food stamps, housing, medical care, ad infinitum. All of these services are costly to those of us forced to pay for them. In many cases, the ILLEGALS are in line at the emergency room or for other services that delay the ability of a citizen to receive the services that their tax dollars are paying for.
Before I get a barrage of angry messages about my lack of compassion for immigrants, let me clarify a few items. I am the product of immigrants. According to the best information that I have discovered in years of genealogy research, my ancestors came here legally. The earliest settlers that bear the same name I do and from whom I have descended were here in 1775 according to census records. The other branches of my family arrived from that time until the early part of the 20th century. The most recent immigrant was from Ireland and went through Ellis Island.
I understand that, in spite of the views from the Socialists currently running our government, what we have here is the envy of the world. There are many that would love to have the standard of living that we (at least used to) enjoy. However, if we continue to allow this influx of those that steal our jobs and then send that money back home, we will continue to see a dilution of our way of life.
References
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041401433.html
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea35.txt
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123140/half-new-latino-immigrants-send-money-abroad.aspx
And while we are on the subject of ILLEGAL immigrants, let's take a look at some numbers and how they are impacting our collapsing economy. According to an April 15, 2009 news story in the Washington Post, the number of ILLEGAL immigrants is estimated to be "10.4 million adults and 1.5 million foreign-born children". Add to this number the estimated 4 million offspring of these ILLEGALS that have been born here and now can enjoy citizenship and we have a whopping 15.9 million people in this country that do not belong here.
Let's take the number of adults, many of whom are employed in some fashion here in the U.S. (BTW, it is also ILLEGAL to hire the ILLEGAL immigrants). According the the Bureau of Labor statistics, there are 14.4 million unemployed Americans as of November 2009.
Let's do a bit of simple math here...14.4 million unemployed minus the 10.4 million jobs that the ILLEGALS are holding down equals 4.4 million total people that would remain unemployed if the ILLEGALS weren't here stealing jobs. Wow...even with my poor math skills, that looks like a simple way to drop the unemployment rate by about 2/3rds.
Now let's factor in a few other items that are impacting our economy by the ILLEGALS. Many of these CRIMINALS earn money here in the U.S. and then promptly ship it out to family and friends in their home country. Therefore, simple deductive reasoning would indicate that money that is earned here and then shipped out of the country is lost to the economy here and benefits the foreign economy and not ours.
According to an article on gallup.com (9/22/2009) , "According to the World Bank, Mexico received more than $25 billion in remittances in 2007; a great deal of this money came from the U.S.". So first we have the impact of the loss of jobs for the citizens of this country combined with the loss of $25 billion that is shipped to Mexico alone.
None of the above takes into consideration the ancillary costs that these ILLEGALS are costing each and every one of the taxpayers in this country through the social services these ILLEGALS are using every day...food stamps, housing, medical care, ad infinitum. All of these services are costly to those of us forced to pay for them. In many cases, the ILLEGALS are in line at the emergency room or for other services that delay the ability of a citizen to receive the services that their tax dollars are paying for.
Before I get a barrage of angry messages about my lack of compassion for immigrants, let me clarify a few items. I am the product of immigrants. According to the best information that I have discovered in years of genealogy research, my ancestors came here legally. The earliest settlers that bear the same name I do and from whom I have descended were here in 1775 according to census records. The other branches of my family arrived from that time until the early part of the 20th century. The most recent immigrant was from Ireland and went through Ellis Island.
I understand that, in spite of the views from the Socialists currently running our government, what we have here is the envy of the world. There are many that would love to have the standard of living that we (at least used to) enjoy. However, if we continue to allow this influx of those that steal our jobs and then send that money back home, we will continue to see a dilution of our way of life.
References
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041401433.html
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea35.txt
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123140/half-new-latino-immigrants-send-money-abroad.aspx
Kalifornia Wackjobs
I cannot believe the idiocy of some people...even the folks from Kalifornia have to be shaking their heads about this.
Apparently Ricardo Dominguez, an associate professor of visual arts at UC San Diego has decided to not only help the ILLEGAL aliens that are invading this country by building a GPS enabled application to help the criminals cross the border successfully and will even pipe them inspirational poetry to encourage them while breaking the law.
Now let's see if I can draw a good parallel here....I build an application that explains how to circumvent the security system of a bank to allow others to steal from said bank. The application also includes poetry to encourage the criminals during the heist. Am I not an accessory to the crime?
Why is this moron still collecting a paycheck from the state? And better yet, why is he not in jail??
Apparently Ricardo Dominguez, an associate professor of visual arts at UC San Diego has decided to not only help the ILLEGAL aliens that are invading this country by building a GPS enabled application to help the criminals cross the border successfully and will even pipe them inspirational poetry to encourage them while breaking the law.
Now let's see if I can draw a good parallel here....I build an application that explains how to circumvent the security system of a bank to allow others to steal from said bank. The application also includes poetry to encourage the criminals during the heist. Am I not an accessory to the crime?
Why is this moron still collecting a paycheck from the state? And better yet, why is he not in jail??
Thursday, June 4, 2009
World's Smallest Political Quiz
This is a very interesting project. Check out the quiz here
Update 1/5/2009 - I neglected to add my results in this quiz. My views are right in the middle of the Libertarian area of the scale.
Update 1/5/2009 - I neglected to add my results in this quiz. My views are right in the middle of the Libertarian area of the scale.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
BHO's Date Night
Oh please!!!
The Obamas made a recent trip to NYC for "date night" all at the taxpayers expense for dinner and a show. Now assuming the Obamas picked up the tab for the dinner and show, the U.S. taxpayers are still out the $40,000 per hour it takes to operate Air Force One not to mention the costs of security, staff transportation, press transportation and a host of other expenses associated with this little jaunt.
I find it amazing that the president that promised "change" would take this step. Especially when there are Americans that are having trouble purchasing basic necessities like food and shelter. Hell, I know I can't afford to take anyone's wife to NYC for date night even if I fly there using frequent flier miles. I'm lucky if I can squeeze in a pizza once a week or so.
And what about the nasty "carbon footprint" this little trip created? Now, now Mr. President, I thought that green was the way to go. Surely a flight to NYC on a 747 for a date night is not a responsible use of this country's resources.
The Obamas made a recent trip to NYC for "date night" all at the taxpayers expense for dinner and a show. Now assuming the Obamas picked up the tab for the dinner and show, the U.S. taxpayers are still out the $40,000 per hour it takes to operate Air Force One not to mention the costs of security, staff transportation, press transportation and a host of other expenses associated with this little jaunt.
I find it amazing that the president that promised "change" would take this step. Especially when there are Americans that are having trouble purchasing basic necessities like food and shelter. Hell, I know I can't afford to take anyone's wife to NYC for date night even if I fly there using frequent flier miles. I'm lucky if I can squeeze in a pizza once a week or so.
And what about the nasty "carbon footprint" this little trip created? Now, now Mr. President, I thought that green was the way to go. Surely a flight to NYC on a 747 for a date night is not a responsible use of this country's resources.
Sotomayor, a Racist on SCOTUS
Let's begin the entry by allowing me to state that I am white. My ancestors came from England, Ireland, Wales and Germany. So, I am a true Euro-mix of nationalities. I have one line of my family that I have traced back to 1775 in the then colony of New York. My most recent immigrant is my great-grandfather who arrived at the turn of the 20th century from Ireland.
Being white, I am proud of my heritage. However, I cannot express said pride without being labeled as a racist. Should I make a public statement that a white male is smarter than someone from another race, I am labeled a bigot.
Now we have our newest nominee to the SCOTUS who happens to be Hispanic and has gone on record as stating "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Now I must ask, why does this double standard exist? If I were to make a statement that a wise WHITE male would reach a better conclusion than a Latina, I am racist. If I start an organization name National Society for the Advancement of Caucasions or the Caucasion College Fund, I am racist. Even the POTUS spent more time in his campaign focusing on being half black and not half white.
To me, it is apparent that Sotomayor is not suited to sit on the bench of our highest court or any other court for that matter. There should not be a white view, a black view, or any other partisan view from the bench. The job of the SCOTUS is to review the laws and eliminate those that do not abide by our Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.
Being white, I am proud of my heritage. However, I cannot express said pride without being labeled as a racist. Should I make a public statement that a white male is smarter than someone from another race, I am labeled a bigot.
Now we have our newest nominee to the SCOTUS who happens to be Hispanic and has gone on record as stating "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Now I must ask, why does this double standard exist? If I were to make a statement that a wise WHITE male would reach a better conclusion than a Latina, I am racist. If I start an organization name National Society for the Advancement of Caucasions or the Caucasion College Fund, I am racist. Even the POTUS spent more time in his campaign focusing on being half black and not half white.
To me, it is apparent that Sotomayor is not suited to sit on the bench of our highest court or any other court for that matter. There should not be a white view, a black view, or any other partisan view from the bench. The job of the SCOTUS is to review the laws and eliminate those that do not abide by our Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
40 Reasons to Support Gun Control | Gather
40 Reasons to Support Gun Control
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense ? give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.
18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense ? give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.
18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Under fire, Pelosi gets backing from fellow Democrats
Under fire, Pelosi gets backing from fellow Democrats: "A CNN poll Monday found 48 percent of those polled disapprove of the way Pelosi is handling her job, versus 39 percent who approve."
What a surprise, the Democrats are backing yet another liar. Remember this is the same party that backed Clinton over the whole Monica fiacso.
What a surprise, the Democrats are backing yet another liar. Remember this is the same party that backed Clinton over the whole Monica fiacso.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
What the FUCK??
As any reader of this blog knows, I am not a supporter of Obama in any way shape or form. His recent actions with the king of Saudi Arabia is a prime example of why this man is unfit to hold the office he does.
Since when does the President of the U.S., the leader of the free world bow to a foreign leader? This is bullshit! We are not subjects of any foreign country or leader. That was resolved after the Revolutionary War.
Now the White House states that it was not a "bow" but merely Obama bending down to grasp the hand of the king. Once again, I call bullshit. Take a look a the video and judge for yourself.
Obama bowing
Since when does the President of the U.S., the leader of the free world bow to a foreign leader? This is bullshit! We are not subjects of any foreign country or leader. That was resolved after the Revolutionary War.
Now the White House states that it was not a "bow" but merely Obama bending down to grasp the hand of the king. Once again, I call bullshit. Take a look a the video and judge for yourself.
Obama bowing
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Columbine - 10 years later
I find it interesting that some of the parents of those killed in the Columbine attack are now crowing that it is time to increase the restrictions on purchasing firearms. Tom and Linda Mauser who had a son killed in the tragedy now "honor" their son's memory by campaigning for stricter controls.
Lets take a look at some facts behind the guns used that fateful day and how they were obtained.
The guns: Intratec TEC-DC9 pistol, Hi-Point 9mm Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Savage 311-D 12-gauge shotgun.
How obtained: The carbine and both shotguns were purchased by Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from non FFL sellers. The TEC-DC9 was purchased by the shooters from a friend.
Legality: The purchases by Anderson were LEGAL purchases at the time under Colorado law as she had reached the age of 18. However, when she then transferred the guns to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the purchase became an illegal straw purchase. The TEC-DC9 was purchased from a friend who apparently knew the ages of the shooters but still sold them the pistol for $500. A quck Internet check shows that one can legally purchase a TEC-DC9 today for under $250. The inflated price would lead one to believe that the seller knew that the kids would not be able to purchase the gun legally hence the increase in the price for the illegal sale.
While Columbine was a tragedy for the students and their families, it was also a tragedy for our 2A rights as well. It has become a rally point for all of those who seek to ignore or destroy our 2A rights.
The fact is all four of the guns used in this shooting were acquired ILLEGALLY. Further evidence that those bent on destruction will find a willing partner to supply them their arms. Although the gun grabbers state they are not after our "hunting" firearms, using this incident as their battle cry only further exposes the truth. The two shot guns are typically used for hunting purposes, the 9mm carbine is a pistol round in a rifle, not really a hunting weapon but great for knocking holes in paper. Even the TEC-DC9 is only a semi-automatic pistol even though it received special attention in the 1994 AWB.
Lets take a look at some facts behind the guns used that fateful day and how they were obtained.
The guns: Intratec TEC-DC9 pistol, Hi-Point 9mm Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Savage 311-D 12-gauge shotgun.
How obtained: The carbine and both shotguns were purchased by Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from non FFL sellers. The TEC-DC9 was purchased by the shooters from a friend.
Legality: The purchases by Anderson were LEGAL purchases at the time under Colorado law as she had reached the age of 18. However, when she then transferred the guns to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the purchase became an illegal straw purchase. The TEC-DC9 was purchased from a friend who apparently knew the ages of the shooters but still sold them the pistol for $500. A quck Internet check shows that one can legally purchase a TEC-DC9 today for under $250. The inflated price would lead one to believe that the seller knew that the kids would not be able to purchase the gun legally hence the increase in the price for the illegal sale.
While Columbine was a tragedy for the students and their families, it was also a tragedy for our 2A rights as well. It has become a rally point for all of those who seek to ignore or destroy our 2A rights.
The fact is all four of the guns used in this shooting were acquired ILLEGALLY. Further evidence that those bent on destruction will find a willing partner to supply them their arms. Although the gun grabbers state they are not after our "hunting" firearms, using this incident as their battle cry only further exposes the truth. The two shot guns are typically used for hunting purposes, the 9mm carbine is a pistol round in a rifle, not really a hunting weapon but great for knocking holes in paper. Even the TEC-DC9 is only a semi-automatic pistol even though it received special attention in the 1994 AWB.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Mexico's Gun Problems
It looks like the current administration is attempting to leverage problems with the drug gangs in Mexico as a reason to step on our 2A rights. Apparently, BHO and crew believe that all of Mexico's drug gang killings are a result of illegal firearms being sent across the border into Mexico from the U.S. As a result, the feds are looking at additional laws to curtail this mysterious southerly migration of firearms.
Mexico has a serious problem with these drug gangs who use military style weapons including grenade launchers, TOW missiles and a host of full-auto weapons to claim their territory in the lucrative drug trade. BHO and team feel that these weapons are coming from the U.S and therefore more laws need to be passed to prevent this.
Let's examine some facts. Mexico already has some very strict gun laws in place. Not to mention, the illegality of smuggling drugs across the border into the U.S. These drugs typically from Central America and Mexico is just a way point into the U.S.
Now since Mexico already bans both the weapons and drugs, it would appear that this problem has been solved by legislation. However, the so-called border wars continue to rage.
The majority of the weapons being used by these gangs are truly military weapons, grenades, grenade launchers and fully automatic weapons are all hard to come by here in the U.S. However, BHO doesn't realize that there are already laws on the books on both sides of the border that prohibit possession of both the guns and the drugs. Additional laws will be ignored by these gangs just as the current ones are.
If indeed there is a risk of this violence spreading across the border from Mexico, there it is one more reason that we need to get the barriers in place to limit border crossings. In addition, if I were one of the residents near the border, you can bet that I would be armed at all times in order to protect myself and my property from these gangs. BHO would prefer that you become an unarmed victim instead.
Our government has failed to secure our southern border from the daily incursions from unarmed illegals. How the hell are they going to respond to an armed gang with nefarious attempt that wishes to use the same methods of entry?
A word to BHO and crew, lock down the border. Plain and simple. Stop the illegals from crossing the border heading north and you will stop any weapons heading south as well. Securing our border will keep the illegals out that are not only taking jobs from U.S. citizens but also will prevent the flow of drugs into this country, weapons (if there are any) that are heading south and keep the currency that the illegals are sending home here in the country.
Damn that seems like a simple solution to a whole host of problems.
Mexico has a serious problem with these drug gangs who use military style weapons including grenade launchers, TOW missiles and a host of full-auto weapons to claim their territory in the lucrative drug trade. BHO and team feel that these weapons are coming from the U.S and therefore more laws need to be passed to prevent this.
Let's examine some facts. Mexico already has some very strict gun laws in place. Not to mention, the illegality of smuggling drugs across the border into the U.S. These drugs typically from Central America and Mexico is just a way point into the U.S.
Now since Mexico already bans both the weapons and drugs, it would appear that this problem has been solved by legislation. However, the so-called border wars continue to rage.
The majority of the weapons being used by these gangs are truly military weapons, grenades, grenade launchers and fully automatic weapons are all hard to come by here in the U.S. However, BHO doesn't realize that there are already laws on the books on both sides of the border that prohibit possession of both the guns and the drugs. Additional laws will be ignored by these gangs just as the current ones are.
If indeed there is a risk of this violence spreading across the border from Mexico, there it is one more reason that we need to get the barriers in place to limit border crossings. In addition, if I were one of the residents near the border, you can bet that I would be armed at all times in order to protect myself and my property from these gangs. BHO would prefer that you become an unarmed victim instead.
Our government has failed to secure our southern border from the daily incursions from unarmed illegals. How the hell are they going to respond to an armed gang with nefarious attempt that wishes to use the same methods of entry?
A word to BHO and crew, lock down the border. Plain and simple. Stop the illegals from crossing the border heading north and you will stop any weapons heading south as well. Securing our border will keep the illegals out that are not only taking jobs from U.S. citizens but also will prevent the flow of drugs into this country, weapons (if there are any) that are heading south and keep the currency that the illegals are sending home here in the country.
Damn that seems like a simple solution to a whole host of problems.
Oakland Cop Shooting
The recent killing of four police officers in Oakland seems to have brought the gun grabbers out of the woodwork. I reading through the "news" papers from the area, there is a call to further restrict 2A rights in Kalifornia due to this tragedy.
One thing that I notice missing from the ruckus is any mention of culpability for Lovelle Mixon, the shooter or for the Kalifonia parole board that put him back on the streets and threatened the well being of all citizens.
A bit of background for those who do not follow the news from the left coast; Lovelle Mixon was a convicted felon. He served 5 years of a 6 year sentence for assault with a firearm. Mixon gained parole in October of 2007 only to be considered possible suspect in a homicide in Alameda County in February 2008. This status caused Mixon to spend another 9 months in prison before being released again on November 1, 2008 because no charges were filed in the murder case.
Between his last release and February 18, 2009, Mixon apparently performed as a parolee should and reported on a regular basis. Come the middle of February, Mixon had disappeared from the control of his parole officer and was considered a parolee-at-large and a warrant is issued for his arrest.
Attempts were made to locate Mixon and return him to prison before the March 21st events that led to the killing of three officers.
Let's examine where this system broke down; First, Mixon was apparently a repeat offender at the time he was returned to prison during a murder investigation. He was subsequently released again from prison only to disappear from radar three months later. As a convicted felon, he was already prohibited from even touching a firearm under current laws.
As a parolee, Mixon became the responsibility of the state Board of Parole who is responsible for making sure he behaves himself. This process failed as he managed to disappear from their control within three months of his release.
It is apparent that Mixon should not have been on the streets to begin with. The Parole Board should not have released him after he was arrested under suspicion of murder. He should have served the remainder of his time of the original sentence. Both times that Mixon was released on parole, he was in trouble within three months, the first time as a suspect in a murder, the second as a parole violator. Apparently, the parole system in Kalifornia does not work and should be revisited.
Finally, let us not forget that current laws prohibited Mixon from having any guns in his possession. Laws that he chose to ignore and in the process managed to take the life of four officers. Additional laws would not have kept Mixon on the straight and narrow. He was a criminal and, as such, had a history of disobeying the laws currently in existence. Disarming law abiding citizens would not have prevented this tragedy in any form. Mixon would have procured a gun by whatever means were available to him.
One thing that I notice missing from the ruckus is any mention of culpability for Lovelle Mixon, the shooter or for the Kalifonia parole board that put him back on the streets and threatened the well being of all citizens.
A bit of background for those who do not follow the news from the left coast; Lovelle Mixon was a convicted felon. He served 5 years of a 6 year sentence for assault with a firearm. Mixon gained parole in October of 2007 only to be considered possible suspect in a homicide in Alameda County in February 2008. This status caused Mixon to spend another 9 months in prison before being released again on November 1, 2008 because no charges were filed in the murder case.
Between his last release and February 18, 2009, Mixon apparently performed as a parolee should and reported on a regular basis. Come the middle of February, Mixon had disappeared from the control of his parole officer and was considered a parolee-at-large and a warrant is issued for his arrest.
Attempts were made to locate Mixon and return him to prison before the March 21st events that led to the killing of three officers.
Let's examine where this system broke down; First, Mixon was apparently a repeat offender at the time he was returned to prison during a murder investigation. He was subsequently released again from prison only to disappear from radar three months later. As a convicted felon, he was already prohibited from even touching a firearm under current laws.
As a parolee, Mixon became the responsibility of the state Board of Parole who is responsible for making sure he behaves himself. This process failed as he managed to disappear from their control within three months of his release.
It is apparent that Mixon should not have been on the streets to begin with. The Parole Board should not have released him after he was arrested under suspicion of murder. He should have served the remainder of his time of the original sentence. Both times that Mixon was released on parole, he was in trouble within three months, the first time as a suspect in a murder, the second as a parole violator. Apparently, the parole system in Kalifornia does not work and should be revisited.
Finally, let us not forget that current laws prohibited Mixon from having any guns in his possession. Laws that he chose to ignore and in the process managed to take the life of four officers. Additional laws would not have kept Mixon on the straight and narrow. He was a criminal and, as such, had a history of disobeying the laws currently in existence. Disarming law abiding citizens would not have prevented this tragedy in any form. Mixon would have procured a gun by whatever means were available to him.
It has been awhile....
I have been a bit neglectful of keeping this blog up to date. Real life has interfered with this process and I apologize.
Although I haven't been writing to vent, I do keep abreast of the news regarding gun laws and other assaults on my personal freedoms. There have been a number of items int he news recently about further assaults on my 2A rights so I will make a few comments:
Kirsten Gillibrand is a sellout!
What first appeared to be a shining light within the NY state political scene has turned into another case of bowing to pressure rather than standing up for what one believes in.
After being appoint to replace Hillary Clinton as the senator from NY, it came to light that Gillibrand was a proponent of gun control rights and actually owned guns. Unfortunately, she has since bowed to pressure to change how she stores the gun in her household by keeping them unloaded, with trigger locks and with the ammo stored separately. All of this to appease some critics and help to gain a few more votes when it comes to election time.
I personally, keep a couple of loaded guns handy in my house and within easy reach to ensure that I can defend me and mine in the event someone enters the house illegally. Locking up my means of protection and hindering my ability to readily access a weapon should the need arises goes against the very core of my belief.
Although I was unable to find a direct quote, it also appears that Gillibrand has made a statement that 2A was about hunters rights. How naive can one person be?
Although I haven't been writing to vent, I do keep abreast of the news regarding gun laws and other assaults on my personal freedoms. There have been a number of items int he news recently about further assaults on my 2A rights so I will make a few comments:
Kirsten Gillibrand is a sellout!
What first appeared to be a shining light within the NY state political scene has turned into another case of bowing to pressure rather than standing up for what one believes in.
After being appoint to replace Hillary Clinton as the senator from NY, it came to light that Gillibrand was a proponent of gun control rights and actually owned guns. Unfortunately, she has since bowed to pressure to change how she stores the gun in her household by keeping them unloaded, with trigger locks and with the ammo stored separately. All of this to appease some critics and help to gain a few more votes when it comes to election time.
I personally, keep a couple of loaded guns handy in my house and within easy reach to ensure that I can defend me and mine in the event someone enters the house illegally. Locking up my means of protection and hindering my ability to readily access a weapon should the need arises goes against the very core of my belief.
Although I was unable to find a direct quote, it also appears that Gillibrand has made a statement that 2A was about hunters rights. How naive can one person be?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Illinois' Bonehead Legislation Attempt
Illinois Rep. Kenneth Dunkin (D- Chicago) introduced a bill to require that LEGAL firearm owners in the state carry a $1 million dollar insurance policy covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the firearm.
A funny thing about this proposed requirement, there isn't an insurance company in the country that will issue such a policy. Now what kind of moron makes the decision to introduce a bill that 1) impossible to comply with and 2) only impacts those that try to stay within the law? The answer is apparently the boneheads in Illinois, land of Lincoln and some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
To any of my readers from the state of Illinois: How long are you going to keep tolerating this from your public servants?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Minnesota tries new gun control law
I see that Minnesota legislators are now looking at a bill to close the mythical gun show loophole that is supposedly responsible for all of the gun related crimes in the U.S. . According to a story by The Star Tribune, "The bill would close the so-called "gun show/Internet loophole." It would prohibit private sales of pistols or assault weapons unless the buyer or seller was a federally licensed dealer, or used a licensed dealer to transfer the weapon. That includes sales at garage and estate sales and over the Internet, which are currently exempt from background checks."
We have a winner for today's bonehead legislation contest. Let's take a look at the comment above piece by piece.
The mythical "gun show loophole" has some new brothers, the Internet, garage sale and estate sale loopholes. First, my personal experience at most gun shows I attend is that the "guns show loophole" is a myth. Yes there are a few private sales of some weapons at guns shows but the vast majority of the tables I have approached are run by those who are FFL dealers and DO require that you abide by existing laws by filling out the paperwork and going through the mandatory background check. The private sales at guns shows eliminate the need of me inviting God knows who over to my house if I want to sell a gun. I can take the gun to the show, others that may be interested in it can view it and make an offer, and a deal can be made.
The Internet loophole is something completely new and unusual. Under existing laws, a transfer of a gun across state lines already requires the services of an FFL for a legal transfer. Even within the Republic of Texas, I cannot legally ship a gun to another person. So where is the loophole? Is there some mystical site on the Internet that will allow me to purchase a firearm without abiding by the local laws? If so, please point it out to me as I am sure the boys at BATF don't have an idea it may be out there.
Now one of the key points of the bill according to the article is that it will outlaw the private transfer of the dreaded and evil "Assault Weapons". I am anxious to see what the definition of an assault weapon turns out to be in this bill.
Now a quiz for my readers...
Which one of the firearms pictured below is an "Assault Weapon"?
Answer: Neither, it is a trick question. They are both Ruger 10-22 rifles. One of the most common of the .22 plinkers that millions of people have used to learn the proper use of firearms.
The second picture is merely the same gun with a different set of stocks, guards and other accessories. Both are still .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles with no difference in functionality, only how the weapon looks. The bottom picture even dispalys the standard 10 round magazine sold with the gun.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Some Words of wisdom
An old grandpa once said, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' knee caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin'."
He goes on to say the following:
I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.
Tennessee Gets It
The "it" here is that the lawmakers of Tennessee have filed 18 bills to loosen existing restrictions on firearms. An additional 4 bills have been introduced to restrict access to the database that houses information on CHL holders.
Hats off to Tennessee!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Say it ain't so...
I was handed a news story tonight at a motorcycle club meeting mentioning the little town of Tenaha, Texas. Tenaha is a small town with a population just over 1000 people less than 20 miles from the Texas-Louisiana border.
According to the article, it appears that the law enforcement officers of both the town and Shelby County have been accosting motorists that pass through the area. The law enforcement officials have been coercing motorist to turn over money and property in return for free passage through the area.
These so-called officials are performing what amounts to highway piracy on a regular basis. They have confiscated numerous automobiles, jewelry, cash and other property from 140 motorists between 2006 and 2008. All of this without filing criminal charges against less than half of the motorists. The motorists were threatened with arrest and/or jail time unless they waived their rights to the property.
I am appalled at this lack of respect for the Fifth Amendment rights of these motorists. The Fifth Amendment clearly states that a person shall not be, "...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
One of the "law enforcement uses" for the confiscated property included a beer and margarita party for officers.
Please explain to me how this is justified in any way, shape or form?
The Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee is looking into this matter but only after ten of the motorists filed a suit against both the town of Tenaha and Shelby County.
I'll be following this story and the associated lawsuit to see how the state reacts to this fiasco and will keep you posted.
To quote an oft used phrase from the movies, "Looks like you are in a heap of trouble, boy."
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
A March on the Texas State Capitol
A good portion of this blog deals with Second Amendment rights but all of my rights are important to me. As any reader of this blog is aware, I am proudly outspoken when it comes to our elected officials and will gladly point out each of their infractions against my rights.
The picture above is me and about 3,000 of my closest friends marching on the Texas State Capitol on January 16th . Although the picture is a bit small, I am the guy under the big red mark on the photo.
The purpose of this gathering was to inform our legislators that we are aware of the bills they are attempting to pass that limit our rights as motorcyclists as well as citizens of this country. Plain and simple, we have had enough and are not going to take the continued erosion of our rights and liberties sitting down.
I am a patch holder in a local motorcycle club (name withheld to protect the innocent and guilty) and am active in the Texas Confederation of Clubs (TCoC). I am also one of our two club representatives and the DFW area secretary for the Texas Defenders program.
The Texas Defenders program was commissioned by TCoC State Chairman Bandido Gimmi Jimmy in the early fall of 2007 and has taken on a force of its own. This program was presented to the attendees of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM) this year and is spreading like wildfire across the country. The same program is also known as the US Defenders across the country as the various CoC's climb on board to protect their rights.
Another portion of the program is the Coalition of Independent Riders (COIR). The COIR works in conjunction with the CoC's to bring non-patch holding riders into the fold to make sure they are both aware of the legislation that may impact them and to make sure that their voices are heard by our legislators.
The march this year on the state capitol was a very moving experience for me. It was quite something to hear 3,000+ voices raised in unison on the capitol steps as we recited the Pledge of Allegiance before going inside to visit with our legislators.
If you are a patch holder, check with your local CoC and see if there is a similar program in place in your area. If you are an independent rider, join the COIR and make sure your voice joins ours in protecting your rights.
If you need help in setting up a similar program in your area or do not know who to contact, let me know and I will get the information for you.
To read a bit more about the Texas Defenders program, check out the Texas CoC page.
Ride Free!
Definitions of terms used in this blog.
I have been asked a few times what some of the phrases I use in this blog mean. This post is an attempt to explain these terms to newer readers. I will edit this entry and add more definitions as the need arises.
Unarmed Victim(s) - These are members of the populace who do not understand that the Second Amendment is not about hunting but about personal protection from criminals and tyranny. Unarmed victims typically live with the misunderstanding that all guns are evil pieces of machinery and can act on their own accord to cause harm. They have no desire to protect themselves and are happy to allow the government to dictate what is good for them.
An unarmed victim can also be a member of the populace unfortunate enough to live in a police state that does not recognize the Second Amendment rights of their citizens. Citizens in areas such as Chicago and all of California are, by legislation, unarmed victims.
Bonehead(ed) Legislation - This is one of the nicer terms I use to describe legislation, either proposed or in place, that does nothing to actually help the citizens and actually harms them by ignoring their rights and ability to protect themselves. Examples of boneheaded legislation are HR45, the original AWB and most "gun laws" currently on the books.
I first encountered the term "bonehead legislation" in the title of a book about outrageous laws called 'The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation" by Dick Hyman. I enjoyed this book and for some reason the descriptor for the legislation has stuck with me over the years.
The Second Amendment or 2A - “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.” These are the most important 27 words in the U.S. Constitution. This phrase acknowledges our inalienable right to protect ourselves, our property and our family against the criminal element or, if necessary, our government.
Republic of Texas - To the uninitiated, this is also known as the Great State of Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas agreed to be annexed by the U.S. and joined the Union as the 28th state. Texas is the only state that was a sovereign nation prior to joining the Union. While not a native Texan, the ideals and feelings I have for my home state for the last 15 years are as strong as any native-born son of the Republic.
Below are a few interesting tidbits from the Texas Constitution. It clearly states:
“Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States...” (note that it does not state “...subject to the President of the United States...” or “...subject to the Congress of the United States...” or “...subject to the rest of the United States...”)
And
"All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”
Unfortunately, Texas citizens like most in the U.S. have meekly allowed the government to slowly erode the rights that made this country so great.
Is Canada Finally Seeing the Light?
Although I rarely concern myself with the events that occur north of the U.S. border, a recent news item caught my eye that I feel compelled to comment on.
As most already know, Canada is one of the countries who has taken drastic steps to disarm the populace and make all of their citizens a member of the unarmed victims. Canada is home to some of the most restrictive gun registration laws in a costly but feeble attempt to protect the public.
About a decade ago, Canada created the Canadian Long Gun Registry that was to cost the taxpayers of the frozen north $2 million to maintain. A decade later, the costs of this boneheaded legislation has increased to $2 billion while doing little to protect the unarmed victims.
Bill C-301, a Private Members' Bill introduced by Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz would eliminate this worthless piece of legislation and require that the Canadian auditor general to perform a public safety test on all gun control measures every five years.
MP Barry Devolin, states about the bill "I believe Canadians would rather see their tax dollars keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs, instead of harassing law-abiding citizens."
Wow, the Canadians are finally realizing that this type of legislation is a too costly to maintain while providing little protection to the the unarmed victims. Criminals do not follow laws, hence one of the reasons they are considered criminals.
Maybe we need to take a lesson from our neighbors to the north. The Canadian's have already outlawed most handguns and consequently the expensive registry is for long guns only. How would this impact those of us in the U.S.? Take a look at HR 45 that is an attempt to implement a similar registry.
Of course HR 45 is only designed to deal with handguns and those evil semi-automatic weapons with a detachable magazine. But at what cost financially? Our government is not known to be frugal when it comes to spending tax dollars. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our legislators spend money like drunken sailors on a two day liberty. With the current state of the U.S. economy and the projected budget deficits in the coming years can we even come close to affording more useless legislation like HR 45?
As most already know, Canada is one of the countries who has taken drastic steps to disarm the populace and make all of their citizens a member of the unarmed victims. Canada is home to some of the most restrictive gun registration laws in a costly but feeble attempt to protect the public.
About a decade ago, Canada created the Canadian Long Gun Registry that was to cost the taxpayers of the frozen north $2 million to maintain. A decade later, the costs of this boneheaded legislation has increased to $2 billion while doing little to protect the unarmed victims.
Bill C-301, a Private Members' Bill introduced by Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz would eliminate this worthless piece of legislation and require that the Canadian auditor general to perform a public safety test on all gun control measures every five years.
MP Barry Devolin, states about the bill "I believe Canadians would rather see their tax dollars keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs, instead of harassing law-abiding citizens."
Wow, the Canadians are finally realizing that this type of legislation is a too costly to maintain while providing little protection to the the unarmed victims. Criminals do not follow laws, hence one of the reasons they are considered criminals.
Maybe we need to take a lesson from our neighbors to the north. The Canadian's have already outlawed most handguns and consequently the expensive registry is for long guns only. How would this impact those of us in the U.S.? Take a look at HR 45 that is an attempt to implement a similar registry.
Of course HR 45 is only designed to deal with handguns and those evil semi-automatic weapons with a detachable magazine. But at what cost financially? Our government is not known to be frugal when it comes to spending tax dollars. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our legislators spend money like drunken sailors on a two day liberty. With the current state of the U.S. economy and the projected budget deficits in the coming years can we even come close to affording more useless legislation like HR 45?
God Bless Texas!
If you look at my profile on the left side of the page, you will note that I am a proud resident of the Republic of Texas. I am not a native born Texan but I did get here as fast as possible.
In my research, I noticed that victims of guns crimes typically take two different paths. Either they become rabidly anti-gun and look to the government for protection by passing new laws or they take matters into their own hands and decide they will not be unarmed should the situation arise again.
Personally, I am one of the latter. As a young adult fresh from the military, I was working as a property manager for a small realty company. On January 4, 1982 our office was robbed at gunpoint. The two gunmen escaped with about $6,000 in cash, some jewelry and my wallet with two weeks pay inside. The gunmen spent about 15 minutes terrorizing the five of us that were still in the office. My boss was so scared that he actually wet his pants during the ordeal. Fortunately, nobody was injured. Unfortunately, these thieves were never caught and brought to justice for this crime. I have to wonder how many others were terrorized by these two miscreants?
The next day, I went out gun shopping and purchased a Charter Arms British Bulldog in .38 Special. This was my first handgun and was purchased for one purpose, to ensure that I would not be an unarmed victim again. My boss had the same idea and purchased a small semi-auto in .32 for his wife and a .380 for himself. Never again would either of us be an unarmed victim.
My purpose to this little trip down memory lane is to mention a lady who I greatly admire for her actions after finding herself as an unarmed victim. Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, was in a Luby's restaurant in San Antonio on October 16, 1991. On that day, George Jo Hennard crashed his truck through the window and opened fire on the approximately 80 people inside. He managed to kill 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. Among those killed were both of Hupp's parents. Hennard managed to reload multiple times and still had ammunition remaining when he shot himself.
Dr. Hupp had left her pistol in her vehicle in the parking lot because of the restrictive laws in Texas at the time regarding carrying a weapon. During the slaughter, Hupp regretted following the law and making herself an unarmed victim. As she stated in testimony before Congress, "I realized that I made the stupidest decision of my life, I took my gun out of my purse and left it in my car. Because, as you well know, in the state of Texas it's sometimes a felony offense to carry a gun in your purse...I'm mad at my legislators for legislating me out of the right to protect myself and my family. I would rather be sitting in jail with a felony offense on my head and have my parents alive".
In the aftermath of the deaths of her parents, Hupp didn't look to the government for protection. Instead, she became vocal proponent of the right to carry. Her actions were key in the passing of the Texas law allowing concealed carry.
During testimony in front of Congress regarding the original assault weapons ban, Dr. Hupp made it clear as to the purpose of the Second Amendment. Some quotes from her testimony:
"As far as these so-called assault weapons, you say that they don't have any defense use. You tell that to the guy that I saw on a video tape of the L.A. riots standing up on his rooftop protecting his property and his life from an entire mob with one of these so-called assault weapons. Tell me he didn't have a legitimate self-defense use."
"Just one final statement. I've been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this, but it's about our rights, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there"
Remember, the "guys up there" were the members of Congress that ultimately passed that original AWB in spite of her testimony. One has to wonder, maybe she scared the shit out them.
My hat is off to Dr. Hupp for her reaction to the killing of her parents that day and her stand in front of Congress. She realized well before the SCOTUS ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) that the police have no obligation to protect us. It is our right as well as our responsibility to protect ourselves.
Note: The quotes from Dr. Hupp's testimony before Congress are used with her permission. Although testimony before Congress is public record I felt obligated to contact her and seek her permission before posting this in the blog. Thank you Dr. Hupp for your permission to use your very compelling testimony and for your efforts in protecting and raising an awareness of the true meaning of the Second Amendment.
Here is one of the clearest videos of her testimony before Congress with some additional commentary by Penn & Teller:
Another Sell Out to the Unarmed Victims?
Oh how wrong I was.
I was impressed that New York may finally be turning the corner and recognizing the Second Amendment for what it is, the right of the people to defend themselves. When Kirsten Gillibrand first took Hillary Clinton's New York senate seat, I was thrilled. Now I am merely appalled.
Senator Gillibrand has now made a rather idiotic statement in order to garner political favor among the unarmed victims in her state. Her statement, "There's a very big difference between making sure hunters can hunt in upstate New York, because it's part of our heritage and our history and the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and fighting against gun violence," is ludicrous at best.
Senator Gillibrand seems to equate the Second Amendment with hunting and not with personal safety and ones ability to protect themselves against the criminal element.
Is she a sell out or just misinformed?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership video
Below is an excellent video produced by JPFO. It's something every American should view.
Source: http://jpfo.org
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Let's take a little trip back just over 230 years ago. The place, a group of angry colonies in the New World.
At this time in history, the colonies were being strangled by the rule from England. Taxes were climbing and the needs of the people were not being addressed.
What was the spark that kindled the smoldering resentment in a full-blown revolution against the government? What was it that compelled our founding fathers to fire "the shot heard 'round the world"? The answer is simple, the British marched from Boston to seize the guns and ammunition held in Concord. Our forefathers did not want to sit idly by while the British government took steps to ensure they did not have the means to defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.
Our forefathers learned their lessons well and made sure the people had both the ability to defend their homes, families and property as well as the ability to take the country back from the new government they were creating should the need arise.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Our founding fathers took a stand with their lives to create what was a great country. They stood shoulder to shoulder and thumbed their noses at one of the strongest countries in the world at that time. Their actions and words were branded as treasonous and had the revolution failed they would have surely paid with their lives. Is this how we repay their sacrifices? Now I ask you: Are you a patriot or a tyrant?
Gun Control Issues
The Second Amendment clearly states, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This statement as a right of the people (not a militia or other quasi-military group) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. One would think that this might set the anti-gun crowd (hereafter referred to as the unarmed victims) back a step or two in their zeal to infringe upon this right. Unfortunately, the gun grabbing continues. With Obama in office, our second amendment rights are more in jeopardy now than ever before.
A couple of the more recent bills to begin the progress through the mess that is our government are:
HR 257 - "Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009". Introduced by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)
This bill is a prime example of the lack of knowledge of our lawmakers when it comes to firearms. The bill prohibits someone under the age of 21 of possessing a "semi-automatic assault rifle" or "large capacity magazine". Unfortunately, the bill lacks a definition of either of these prohibited items.
Now while this may seem like a great idea to the unarmed victims, the bill does not take into account that many of the members of our military are under 21 and regularly entrusted with the evil "semi-automatic assault rifles" in defense of our country.
HR 45 - "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009". Introduced by Bobby L. Rush (D-Illinois)
This bill is an attempt to institute a nationwide registry for certain guns. Included in the list are the evil "semi-automatic rifles" as well as all pistols. This bill is a knee jerk reaction to the shooting death of Blair Holt, 16 at the hands of Michael Pace, 16. Pace was given the gun by a third juvenile Kevin Jones, 15 who also served as a lookout for Pace.
While the death of Holt is indeed a tragedy, does it necessitate the need for a national registry of certain firearms? I think not. This crime happened in Chicago, land of some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. A law-abiding citizen must jump though numerous hoops just to be able to own a handgun let alone carry one in public as Pace did. Just off the top of my head, there are at least four local laws already in place in Chicago to prevent just such a tragedy from occurring by restricting the right of a citizen to protect themselves. Pace and Jones ignored these laws as well as the ones against murder, assault with a deadly weapon, discharging a weapon within city limits, possession of a handgun by a minor and possession of a handgun on a CTA bus.
Why didn't those laws protect the life of Blair Holt? Are the laws that are on the books already ineffective or unenforceable? I will leave it to the reader to decide.
Licensing every handgun and certain semi-automatic rifles will not put an end to the violence. All this will serve to do is create another government bureaucracy to your money and track your actions as a private citizen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
