Posts Tagged ‘Guns’


February 28, 2018

Well, it happened again. Liberals are able to do what no marketing firm representing a manufacturer or vendor can do when it comes to raising gun sales volume. The more insanely they bellow about “high capacity clips”, “assault rifles”, “military weaponry” and “well regulated militia”, the higher gun sales volume goes.

Let us first be aware of the Second Amendment. “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.” Liberals/progressives want to concentrate on the words “well regulated Militia”, forgetting that without arms any formal grouping is useless against a heavily armed tyrannical government. They also like to bring into the conversation the likeness of a musket to a semi-automatic rifle.

Here’s what happens to their “living/breathing document” argument.

For my money, if some despot leading the government authorizes the use of automatic rifles to suppress the citizenry, then “We the People” should have like weaponry to defend our freedoms. I’m okay with civilians having fully automatic weapons (now illegal in most states). Their non-combat use might be restricted to sanctioned ranges with heavy fines or imprisonment for unauthorized use beyond that scope. But, when the time comes, we must be able to defend our lives, our freedoms and our dignity by any means possible from those who choose oppression over freedom.

It is also imperative that each and every gun owner pass an accredited class in Basic Handling and Firearm Safety. While not advocating for another “tax” aka license, the school or instructor should issue a certification attesting to the attendee’s knowledge and ability to comply with reasonable standards. Today, to purchase a firearm, there is a very reasonable $10 fee for a federal background check. It’s the responsibility of the feds to collect and secure the required information for that $10 before issuing a permit to purchase.

We were told that giving up some of our privacy to enact the Patriot Act would allow federal agencies to interact with local law enforcement and share information to keep us safe. Well, our privacy and some of our liberties are now gone, yet there is still inadequate responsible information sharing to keep us relatively safe.

Let us not lose more with little to nothing in return.


June 25, 2016

Again and again we hear that citizens don’t need AR-15s or AK-47s or handguns with high capacity magazines. Those guns are not needed for hunting or sport shooting. Those guns are for nothing other than killing large numbers of people. And the people shouting those slogans are right.

The second amendment, “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” was added for the sole purpose of protecting “We the People” from the potential of a tyrannical government.

What most people, on both sides of the gun rights or gun control issue, constantly miss is the preamble to the bill of rights; the first portion of which carries the importance and need for the first ten amendments.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The remaking of our speech, aka: politically correct speech, is a Marxist method of controlling the ignorant and under-educated government dependents by effectively negating the first amendment. Speaking with definition excludes certain potential members of a class. This is done for purpose. Example: “Radical Islamic Terrorists” defines a subset of individuals with a propensity for violence. It separates that group from moderate or peaceful Muslims. However, this administration wants you to believe that it in fact includes all Muslims. This purposeful conflation serves only the radical Muslim community – the ones who want nothing more than to convert or kill all who do not share their primitive views to the fullest.

Please excuse the previous digression, but it does also lend itself to the oncoming and overpowering dictatorial direction of the country. That direction is exactly why the founding fathers of this country deemed it necessary for the citizenry to be armed.

The founders reasoned that the people should have armament like that of any oppressor. Muskets and cap and ball pistols may have been the weaponry of the day, but they were the armament of both the citizens and the government. Today, we have more semi-trained government personnel (this includes the IRS, DHS, HHS, DOL, DOT, EPA, BLM, Departments of Agriculture and Commerce and many more), authorized to carry weapons than total Marine Corps personnel. The government is armed to the hilt with the best and most modern handguns, rifles and ammunition that your money can buy. And, they want nothing more than to remove any potential opposition to their usurped despotic authority.

It is the budding dictators and their uneducated ignorant lemmings who wish to disarm the patriots (“The duty of a Patriot is to protect his country from its government.”Thomas Paine)
of this land so that they can turn it into the likes of Venezuela, Greece, Cuba, China and the former U.S.S.R.

Vote for gun control only if you are at the top of the heap or you choose to figuratively shoot yourself in the foot with the last round legally available to the public for your defense.


December 10, 2015

All this talk from the gun-grabbing left about assault weapons has taken its toll on my senses. From the beginning the argument is flawed. The terms used are flawed and the premise is flawed. Assault weapons? The label sounds so menacingly salacious in itself that certainly something must be done immediately. So let’s break down the emotion invoking term into its various parts and see how that works.

According to the dictionary, an assault is a sudden or violent attack and a weapon is anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim. Given those definitions, if a person advances on another with physical aggression and attempts to blind an adversary with the ballpoint pen, he or she has used an assault weapon. We must ban all pens immediately or at least register any writer in possession of the potential maiming tool!

Mike Tyson bit the ear of Evander Hollyfield during a fight in 1997. Should all teeth be banned as assault weapons?

Using the dictionary definition of the combined term: an assault weapon is a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. None of the mass murderers yet recorded, that my research can identify, have used a weapon capable of automatic fire. Thus, by dictionary definition, no “assault weapon” has yet been used.

Not only that, but the weapons used are always referred to as high powered rifles. The most common weapon used in these killings is the AR-15. It uses a .223 caliber bullet.

Assault weapons (again, by definition) use intermediate-power cartridges. The .223 caliber and its cousin the 5.56 NATO rounds which are most commonly used in these attacks are both considered intermediate-power cartridges. Thus, another contrived falsehood is the naming of weapons and projectiles for the specific purpose of depriving U.S. citizens of our 2nd amendment right.

I’m offended by the blatant and intentional misuse of terms. I must go to my safe place to recover now.


October 30, 2015

For private enterprises, it’s outlawed. Since it’s the government, it’s right, it’s proper and it’s good for you. Nudging is subliminal and it’s effective. A “nudge” is offering what you want to happen and making someone comply if they don’t take steps to consciously reject it.  Nudging, thanks to Cass Sunstein, is now influencing the change promised by Barack Obama.

You don’t need to register to vote, simply apply for a driver license. When states do this, it not only allows people the opportunity to exercise the privilege of voting, it encourages voter turnout. That’s a nudge! Some states are now issuing driver licenses to foreign nationals who cannot even read or understand the driving laws, much less the politics of the nation, yet they may vote.

You no longer have to volunteer to be an organ donor. However, you must sign and file a waiver if you choose not to donate. That’s a nudge. If you fail to opt out of the program when you receive or renew your driver license, your innards can become part of an elected official or other highly influential person as soon as you die or a coerced private physician declares you dead.

This is called the “nudge theory”. Paying a fine to the government for not having health insurance is another form of nudge. Want to make sure that a progressive is in the White House? Just offer a Socialist campaigner and all of a sudden a staunch progressive looks like a moderate, viable and acceptable alternative. Or, on the other side of the aisle, allow a side-show celebrity figure offering inflammatory, bold and definitely not politically correct rhetoric to rally the far right. Now a normal conservative looks good.

The government denies that illegal aliens have any of the rights of citizenship…Welfare benefits, voting rights, Obamacare, Social Security benefits…yet they backdoor the privileges so that you, Mr. or Mrs. taxpayer don’t protest. That’s lying, but the uninformed accept it.

Want to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens? Simply make more places off-limits to guns. Wait for a depressed individual with an UZI on doctor directed medication to enter the grounds, then exploit the tragedy. Say, “See, I told you so. We’ve got to reduce the number of guns available to reduce the possibility of this happening again”. Another nudge.

If you’re the President and want to spend taxpayer money the way you want, take on an authoritarian posture.  Tell the American people military pay will be delayed, Social Security checks will not arrive on time and national parks will have to be closed. By doing so, members of congress who vote against your wishes become villains to those in the military, retirees or families planning a vacation. Nudge!

“Americans want” or “Most Americans say” are quiet nudges meant to make people feel left out if they don’t agree. Given that most people want to be with the majority, to be right, the influence can often cause people of indecisive or impressionable minds to go with the professed flow.

Before making any major decision, take the time to research how that decision may be unduly influenced.


October 5, 2015

Once again we have experienced a mass shooting that took place in another gun-free zone. At Umpqua College, just like the preceding situations, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, and other locations the shooters felt they would be able to effect significant damage before anyone could show up to stop them. They would be able to “enhance their personal profile” even if it meant their own death.

I recently had a head spinning moment when I read an article on a left wing blog to which I subscribe. I found it just so far off the mark that I have to counter punch. I won’t name the blog because I may be their only subscriber and I don’t want to double the announced readership for this professional writers group. However, the posting is titled, “Data Proves Obama Right: Guns Deaths Are Bigger Threat To Americans Than Terrorism”.

The article quotes Democrats, other progressive and anti-gun blogs. It even includes a highly biased and dubious chart which professes to corroborate the president’s statement. I’m sure it works with semi-intelligent Obama worshipers who rage at FOX News or even CNN if there has been a differing fact or opinion presented. Of course, they get the distorted word through hearsay because most liberals cannot stand to directly access any information that doesn’t reinforce what they inherently know.  Thus they tend not to seek any truth.

What this article, as with most opinion biased presentations, fails to account for are the number of lives saved by guns. I can’t find any data regarding the number of lives saved by Obama’s cherished terrorists. Perhaps such data does exist, but I have tried five different search engines with no avail. The closest I can find through any of the search engines checked is an article on Homeland Security Today  titled “Inestimable Lives Believed Saved by Terrorist Watch List ” (emphasis added). The next closest might be “Waterboarding Saved Lives”, but the terrorists in that article did not save any lives through their own volition.

Gun Owners of America offers some fascinating historical facts that any liberal can only challenge by yelling racist, bigot, misogynist, homophobe or other derogatory term. I’m willing to bet that not one will attempt to dispute the footnote documented facts offered with anything less.