Archive for the ‘Editorial, Opinion’ Category

Assault weapons and the truth: Here we go again..!

December 2, 2010

The Obama administration is moving into high gear in putting gun-control advocates into important government positions. The administration’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Andrew Traver, should be of particular concern. His attacks on the civilian use of so-called assault weapons raise real questions about his willingness to distort the truth for political purposes. The person nominated to be the nation’s top gun cop shouldn’t use inaccurate descriptions to scare people into supporting gun control.

Mr. Traver is the special agent in charge of the BATFE’s Chicago field division. Therefore, he knows what was covered by the federal assault-weapons ban that sunset in 2004. But in November 2009, NBC interviewed Traver and reported: “Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They’re so powerful, body armor can’t withstand a hit, and they’re so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.”

SOURCE & SNIP

And further…

The list of problems with Mr. Traver’s claims is very long. If he really believes that these weapons fire unacceptably “heavy caliber” bullets, he is going to have to ban virtually all rifles. Small-game rifles — guns designed to kill squirrels and rabbits without destroying too much meat — typically fire .22-caliber bullets, which are only slightly smaller than the .223-caliber bullets fired by the M16 (used by the U.S. military since Vietnam) and the newer M4 carbine (used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Deer-hunting rifles fire rounds that are very similar to those used by the AK-47.

Speaking of M16s, M4s, and AK-47s, Traver is correct when he states that the guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban were “military-style weapons.” But he fails to note that this really just deals with style — the cosmetics of the guns, not how they actually operate. The guns covered by the ban were not the machine guns actually used by the military, but civilian, semi-automatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the AK-47 may look like the guns used by militaries around the world, but it is different. It fires essentially the same bullets as deer-hunting rifles at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.

On penetrating body armor, Mr. Traver leaves out one important detail: Rifles in general are often able to penetrate body armor simply because their bullets travel faster than those fired from handguns. The same can be said for going through the walls of houses. But if he had said that deer-hunting rifles can often penetrate walls and lower-level types of body armor, it is unlikely that his comments would have generated the same fear.

Unfortunately, Mr. Traver has done more than make clearly inaccurate claims about so-called “assault weapons.” He has supported banning .50-caliber rifles, regulations that would force many gun shows to close down, the Chicago handgun ban, and repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects sensitive trace data from being misused in frivolous municipal lawsuits against gun makers. He also worked with the Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center, on the “Gun Violence Reduction Project.”

The fact that Mr. Traver uses the same misleading claims as groups such as the Brady Campaign shouldn’t make it too surprising that gun-control groups are applauding his nomination. Nor is Traver’s nomination very surprising after President Obama appointed two strong anti-self-defense members to the Supreme Court. But Mr. Traver’s nomination is dangerous. Making up claims about guns to demonize them is beyond what is acceptable for someone who wants a position in which he will be regulating American gun ownership.

John R. Lott Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor, an economist, and the author of More Guns, Less Crime, the third edition of which was recently published by the University of Chicago Press.

More of the same from the nanny government types that ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now, as a retired Paramedic I can tell you a truism. Get smacked between the eyes with a single shot twenty gauge shotgun, or a fully automatic M2 Fifty caliber machine gun, the result is the exact same thing. You got smacked to death, period. So stop blaming calibers.

“Assault” weapons..? Hey creeps I got a question for you. Why is it that you want to ban effective weaponry to American citizens when the bad guys; be they terrorist’s or criminals don’t bother with things like background checks, or proper training (Mexican Drug Cartels aside.) and buy black market “Choppers” (Full Auto AK47’s) but think that Americans shouldn’t be allowed similar effective weapons..?

The answer is indeed oh so obvious. You “Hate America First.” As well as all things American. Such as refusing to bend a knee toward oppression, kneeling firing position notwithstanding.

Since I support the Minutemen, and other similar groups that support Freedom and Liberty I will in all probability be branded a racist.’ That is after all, what the hell you people do when you cannot argue anything at all based upon logic or reason.

After all, you lost the “sexist” angle when so many women started buying weapons to defend themselves and their families from leftist’s goons… Not from me or others like me. Those folks are often, defined as Social Services, and the BATFE. Best watch out when you go out to destroy a family these days. After all, you never know when that Cop standing next to you is an “Oath Keeper.”

Keep the fire burning friends. As in our newly elected Taxed Enough Already butts. No more of the same old game. No more compromise when Liberty and Freedom are at stake.

PERIOD!

I have no faith whatsoever, in the Country Club Blue Blood Republicans.

Early Christmas Wish’s…

December 2, 2010

Dear Uncle Fred. I know that you are busy so I figured that I’d get my wish list in early so as not to be too much trouble rounding these neat toys for big boys up for me.

I know, some might not be considered politically correct. But, oh well, when were we ever?

Righting “wrongs” based on wrong interpretations of “rights”

December 1, 2010

Socialists,from President Obama on down, look at the government as the
creator and administrator of rights. That is why even some on the left
liked the Heller and the McDonald decisions which overturned gun bans
in Washington, DC and Chicago.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m ecstatic that the Supreme Court ruled
against these the gun bans in these two cities. And I’d rather be in
our shoes today than in the Brady Campaign’s — as they saw their
arguments slapped down harshly by the Court.

So why then would some big-government types like these two decisions
— especially the McDonald case out of Chicago? Because in basing
their decision upon the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the
Justices perpetuated a false doctrine which has allowed the
Constitution to continue evolving.

The Due Process clause is the place where judges invent rights and
then decide how much the government can control them.

Gun Owners of America argued that the Court should have based its
decision on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Court would have then been using a definitive clause dealing with
rights of citizenship rather than the amorphous “substantive” Due
Process Clause where Courts have run wild and seldom come to
constitutionally-based conclusions.

Justices love the Due Process Clause because it has been interpreted
in such a way to allow judges to twist the Constitution to fit their
big-government world view. They love this approach because they love
righting “wrongs” based on what they THINK are “rights.”

President Obama complained on a Public Broadcasting radio interview,
when he was a state senator, that the Constitution only protects
negative rights and that such a limitation (in his view) must be
overcome. Obama made it quite clear that a constitutional republic
that is governed by our Constitution is antithetical to his socialism.
He talks of a right to health care, and a right to a comfortable
living, and, well, a right to anything the left thinks will help buy
votes.

Indeed, the role of government in the Founders’ Constitution is to
protect liberty, and no more. Socialists want government to provide
for everything, making the people dependent, even at the expense of
liberty.

The left is hoping to pit their understanding of the 14th Amendment
where courts create rights against the Tenth Amendment. They argue
that the Fourteenth Amendment, being enacted after the Tenth, trumps
the earlier amendment. That is why they are so eager to inject their
view of government-created rights into the 14th Amendment.

If the government is the creator of rights, then the government must
be protected from the people. That means they cannot allow any notion
that the Second Amendment is intended to be a check on the
unconstitutional exercise of federal power. The constitutional militia
was intended to be an instrument of the states to protect their
citizens from the federal government (by legal definition throughout
the colonies). All freemen were required to own military long arms.

Wyoming is on the right path. Wyoming has a Firearms Freedom Act which
“interposes” Wyoming against all federal laws involving a firearm
made in the state and which remains in the state. Unlike the other
seven states with identical laws, Wyoming makes violation of the act
by a federal official a state offense punishable by up to 365 days in
jail. Had they added one more day to the potential penalty, any
conviction would result in the loss of gun rights under 18 USC 922(g)
for any federal official who violates their law.

States and county sheriffs are going to need to take the militia
clauses of the Constitution seriously. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa
County (Phoenix), Arizona has a posse of 3,000. If Arizona were to
create a State Guard and encourage sheriffs to beef up their posse
strength to levels analogous to Maricopa County, and if other states
were to follow suit, the federal government would be less inclined to
assume that there are no limits to their powers.

Such an outcome will not come about until we understand that there is
no conflict between the Tenth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and that
rights come from God, not from government. Government-made
“rights” are the “wrong” rights.

SOURCE

$harpton Wants FCC to Ban Limbaugh

November 28, 2010

The ah… “Reverend” Al $harpton is back at it. Wanting to ban others rights, while at the same time abusing others while exercising his own.

Liberal firebrand Rev. Al Sharpton is telling audiences that the Federal Communications Commission should take Rush Limbaugh off the airwaves because of perceived offenses toward racial minorities and other groups.

The attack was only the latest in a series of attacks by Democrats, including President Obama, who suggest that America’s political discourse is being crippled by talk radio and cable news shows.

SOURCE

 

 

New Black Panther Investigation: epic fail obama lives up to the name

November 27, 2010

Americans have civil rights, all Americans. One of the very few justifiable duties of government, is in fact, protecting those rights.

Under normal circumstances, we look to government to do just that. Rogue agencies like BATFE notwithstanding, and the Department of Justice in particular. Apparently under the epic failure’s administration this cannot be counted upon. Now, this is a really long read, but take your time and read it all the way through.

WHITE HOUSE QUASHES INVESTIGATION of New Black Panther Voter Intimidation

And the fake Indian..?

November 27, 2010

Colorado’s fake Indian, Ward Churchill lost again. Naturally, he blames racism for his being fired. Surly it couldn’t be plagiarism or un-professional conduct…

The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court decision denying University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill’s effort to get his job back.

The court ruled that Denver District Judge Larry Naves was right to direct a verdict in favor of the university and to find that the university was entitled to “quasi-judicial immunity.”

For more on the ongoing saga of a fake Indian, and campus bully READ HERE.

Return of the Dumbest Poachers Awards

November 27, 2010

In the first three Poachey award ceremonies AmericanHunter.org celebrated stupidity of the finest order. You’ve been witness to everything from the adventures of robo deer to the misadventures of the sorely mistaken the-law-don’t-check-my-Facebook-page poacher. Ah, such classics.

In a season in which I’ve heard that poachers in Oregon probably take as many mule deer as legal hunters, and Wisconsiners will be reporting game violations via text message, I couldn’t resist putting together another compilation. Even if deer season’s final day is a long way off. And trust me, this isn’t the last you’ve seen of these awards in 2010-11.

Full Story

 

 

California: Stuck on stupid!

November 24, 2010

Thank God that I got out of there in 1978. It was bad enough back then…

“In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits. … This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests. In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy — backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels — virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.” –columnist Joel Kotkin

And then these words of wisdom;

“In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes — and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue — and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes. How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise. High tax rates, which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration. The New York Times reported in 2006: ‘An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.’ Expectations are in the eyes of the beholder — and in the rhetoric of the demagogues. If class warfare is more important to some politicians than collecting more revenue when there is a deficit, then let the voters know that. And spare us so-called ‘deficit reduction commissions.'” –columnist Thomas Sowell

SOURCE

Gun Owners of America has two major goals in 2012

November 24, 2010

First — make Barack Obama a one-term President.

Second — make Harry Reid the minority leader in the Senate.

I traveled to Bozeman, Montana on Saturday, November 13th to deliver the Gun Owners of America endorsement for Steve Daines for United States Senate to defeat John Tester in 2012.

Remembering that the 13th was less than two weeks after the November 2nd Election, a time when most people were worn out and resting from the hard work of the last few months, I was blown away by the crowd in attendance.

There were at least 200-300 people in the room on that Saturday morning to listen to Steve Daines give his announcement speech… and he didn’t disappoint them.

In a speech that highlighted the roots of his family (5-generations) who came to America and settled in Montana, he also stressed saving our economy, cutting taxes, putting the federal government on a major diet and PROTECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Music to my ears.

Folks, this guy is the real deal.

After Daines gave his announcement, it was my turn to give the Gun Owners of America endorsement, which was easy since I had the chance to spend time with and to learn about Steve over the past few months.

And it was easy since he is running to unseat Senator John Tester, who has an “F” rating from GOA.

Tester is the poster boy for voting pro-gun on one item and then stabbing pro-gunners in the back and voting anti-gun on the next.

Some examples:

Tester voted to confirm anti-gun leftists Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court for many years to come.

Tester voted not once, but twice, for the so-called “Disclose Act,” which was a blatant attempt by sitting members of Congress to stop groups like Gun Owners of America from giving the voting records of elected officials around election time. This legislation was so blatantly political that it even gave ‘exemptions’ to some groups to campaign while trying to stop others from doing anything!

Tester voted to confirm radical anti-gun U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who, as you will recall, was one of the key figures in the Clinton White House in pushing the ban on semi-automatic firearms. Today, Holder advocates the reinstatement of the Clinton gun ban.

Senator Tester voted for Obama-appointed “regulatory Czar” Cass Sunstein, who believes hunting is outdated and should be stopped and that animals should have legal representation against humans in court.

Senator Tester — are you listening? Gun Owners of America won’t let our members and the pro-gun voters of Montana and America forget how you voted on these key issues before you face the Montana electorate in 2012.

I hope every American and every organization that believes in the Constitution of the United States, and the crucial need to protect it, has the same chance I’ve had to get to know Steve Daines in the very near future.

If they do, I guarantee you that he will have the money and the volunteer workforce to get the job done in 2012 and he will be elected Montana’s next United States Senator.

You can bet that Gun Owners of America and our members will do all we can to help.

If you want to help Steve, go to :

www.stevedaines.com

This is one time where the term “piling on” is a good thing.

Tim Macy
Vice-Chairman
Gun Owners of America

Drills..?

November 24, 2010

The epic fail obama, reacting to the latest Act of War from North Korea..? Hold drills to supposedly scare them off..?

This action, combined with the recently discovered uranium enrichment, and what is being touted as a Chinese missile launch off the coast of California displays what appeasement will get you when you are in the hardball league of global politics.

THIS is what being stuck on stupid looks like!