Posts Tagged ‘Hopolophobia’

Broken Clocks?

March 14, 2009

Even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day as the saying goes. The forces of anti-liberty often point to Great Britain as a fine example of how things like gun control are a panacea for ending violent crime. What they do not like though is reality.

The horror of the school shooting in Winnenden will be followed by calls for Germany’s already restrictive gun laws to be tightened. But the hope that this will work is misplaced.

After the Erfurt school shooting in 2002, guns controls were supposedly strengthened and before that, in 1972, Germany introduced draconian gun laws to combat Baader-Meinhof terrorism. In the first three years after the legislation was passed, German military and police armouries “lost” 34 machine guns, 198 sub-machineguns, 363 automatic rifles and 1,142 pistols: with such firepower available from the organs of the State itself, the Federal Republic did not have enough terrorists to go round. As we in Britain now know, having seen the doubling of handgun crime within five years of our total ban on pistols, “gun control” is a perverse concept.

If the Germans are serious about stopping killers running amok in schools, they might consider the Israeli solution of arming teachers. It works there, as it has on occasion in America – the massacre in the “gun-free zone” of Virginia Tech can be contrasted with the assault by a former pupil on the neighbouring Appalachian Law School in 2002 that was halted by two armed students.

FULL STORY

Strange Bedfellows Indeed: AWB 2009

February 28, 2009

Dirty Harry Reid and San Fran Nancy Pelosi in bed seeking to thwart Eric Holder and the rest of the obamanite’s? Actually supporting the Second Amendment based upon the Constitution? I’m somewhat dazed and it’s been fully a half hour since checking an RSS feed that almost makes it appear that the democrat congress is siding with the National Rifle Association. I’m still waiting for a Gun Owners of America situational analysis, and as we all have learned based upon the collective histories of the players involved we had better keep our heads up.

Eric Holder the treasonous creep that he is blames Americans for Mexico’s crime problem. No, not anything that might be rational, such as America fueling the drug business via the seemingly insatiable market. But, naturally, he attacks our freedoms attaching the blame to Americans. Alright, I’ll give him just a little bit of lee way there. After all, some criminals are buying weapons as straw purchasers and selling them to the drug gangs. That is already a serious felony though Mister Attorney General. But, in your (Eric Holder’s) warped mind it is just so much simpler to deny Americans that have nothing at all to do with the criminal activity their rights as granted them by our Constitution. Or is it just that they (Americans not involved other than possibly as victims) would be all that much easier to arrest and convict than the criminals that are part and parcel of the drug gangs that are more prone to shooting back?

Put all these things together and what do we have then? Politicians that are frightened beyond the pale that they might just lose their positions of power and prestige. An Attorney General who has based his entire career upon being a lackey for the powers of mysandry and hopolophobia. That is also all too obviously a fall guy for the administration, and that has a history of being right in the middle of having an innocent woman killed while holding a baby in her arms, and later having Americans burned to death. None of these people are friends of the American people. After all, the drug gangs have ample means of securing sophisticated weaponry. It’s just  easier to have innocent Americans slaughtered and by law, incapable of effectively defending their families, friends, nation, and selves.

What follows is the National Rifle Association’s take on it all.

Feds Send Mixed Signals On Push For Gun Control

HolderOn Wednesday, February 25, just over five weeks after Inauguration Day, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration will seek to reinstate the expired federal “assault weapon” ban and impose additional restrictions.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said. Based on Holder’s testimony during his confirmation hearings before the Senate, those other “changes” presumably include prohibiting private transfers of firearms and banning most center-fire rifle ammunition as “armor-piercing.”

Holder said that new gun control laws are needed because in Mexico, a country with a history of corruption and disregard for individual rights, there’s a shooting war going on between drug gangs and government troops, and some of the gangsters’ guns have been illegally purchased in the United States.

Few Americans are going to buy into the idea that the U.S. is responsible for internal problems in any foreign country, particularly one to which we give millions of dollars in aid, and in turn illegal drugs and illegal aliens flow freely into our southwestern states.

Holder tried to sell his scheme by saying that “International drug trafficking organizations pose a sustained, serious threat to the safety and security of our communities,” noting that law enforcement officers in this country have arrested more than 750 individuals on related illegal narcotics charges over the last 21 months.

Atta-boy to our law enforcement officers for their good work in making drug gangs bite the dust. But it appears that Holder exaggerated the “threat” that they pose to the U.S. On Thursday, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesperson told NRA-ILA that there is little incidence of Mexican drug gang members committing violent crimes in this country against Americans who are not involved in illegal activities with the gangs. Some Americans who have colluded with the drug-smugglers have not been so lucky, but for that they have only themselves to blame.

Of course, ignored in the discussion was any mention that straw purchasing a firearm for a Mexican drug runner, and transferring a firearm to someone knowing it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime, are currently federal felonies punishable by 10 years in prison.

Holder was still enjoying the high (pardon the pun) that he must have felt from his media moment when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reminded him that it isn’t the Attorney General who makes laws in the United States. Asked whether Holder had spoken to her before putting himself in front of the national news cameras, Pelosi said “no,” adding, “I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now.” Shortly thereafter, the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stated flatly that “Senator Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future.”

Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid were joined in opposing Holder by members of the bipartisan House of Representatives Second Amendment Task Force. U.S. Rep. and Task Force co-chair Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said “The Attorney General’s recent comments about reinstating the ‘assault weapons’ ban are extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our Constitutional right to bear arms.” Co-chair Dan Boren (D-Okla.) added, “The Second Amendment Task Force is adamantly opposed to reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons as it clearly would demonstrate a violation of United States citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.” Other members of the Task Force include Democrats Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), and Republicans Rob Bishop (R-Utah), John Carter (R-Tex.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Steve Scalise (R-La.).

Independently, Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), an NRA Life Member, said that he would “oppose any action on behalf of the Attorney General or President Obama to reinstate the assault weapons ban.”

Unfortunately, Holder still has many options for ways to threaten the right to arms. As examples, he could force the BATFE to once again arbitrarily reinterpret firearm importation law, to further limit the kinds of firearms that may be imported. He could force the agency to discontinue its support of the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects both the privacy of gun buyers and the integrity of police investigations. And though the Justice Department has previously testified against the type of “armor piercing ammunition” restriction gun control supporters advocate today, Holder’s DOJ could reverse course. Holder could also direct BATFE to adopt enforcement policies designed to drive licensed dealers out of business.

And while Sen. Reid has a good record on many gun control issues, there is no doubt where Speaker Pelosi truly stands. She will support gun control, but on her timetable, not one provided her by the new Attorney General.

As we expect to say a lot over the next four years, “Stay tuned.”

SOURCE

Gun control or people control?

February 7, 2009

Those that preach the panacea of a society without violence often use legitimate people as whipping boys for their targets. Legal gun owners for example. Their twisted logic states that guns are evil, and that it is the gun that makes the person do evil things.

Those very same people expose the rest of us to extreme violence, and make it tough, if nor outright illegal to effectively defend ourselves. They make laws that create free fire zones for criminals and social misfits. Like schools, parks and so on. People that inhabit such places are turned into cannon fodder by other people that care little for anything other than their agenda. Such measures may have started out as well intentioned but the evidence is more than clear after so many mass shootings that the law of unintended consequences beats intentions every time.

So then, just who is it that commits most gun crime? A tiny minority are sociopaths that shoot up schools, malls and other public places. By far though, the vast majority are gang related. It is a sad fact of life that in America gangs are just about everywhere. Money is the driving force behind most of the violence, and innocent people get caught in these cross fires as groups vie for territory or “street cred.”

Drugs, and the lucrative profits from dealing that the ongoing drug war bolsters are most often tied to gun violence. At least according the the alphabet soup agencies. A recent CNN article pointed out that nearly all gun violence is gang related. So why then are so many different people, and organizations hell bent on disarming the rest of the population?

It could be blamed on mental illness, and many of the anti rights types are clearly hopolophobics. I think though, that is simply that old game of control. They want control of your life, and through that, your death.

Gun Control, the Democrats are out for revenge

January 10, 2009

Ever since the election I have been commenting about how the politics of revenge will become the law of the land. My RSS feed has been going nuts about new taxes, new confiscation, and assorted other schemes that the gun control crowd are coming up with in order to deny you of your Constitutional rights with regard to being able to properly, and effectively defend your self, family, friends, and country.

What follows is among the best that I have come across.


Alan Korwin

Gun law update: Brady Gun-Ban Strategy Outlined

(Prior report with Brady gun-ban lists: http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm)

The powerful gun-ban lobby has developed its own language to color and disguise its true agenda — the disarming of law-abiding Americans in every way possible, and the end of effective self defense.

Their latest set of plans — used as a fund raiser (outlined below) — is filled with nice sounding terms that put a deceptive spin on their goals. Respect for the Bill of Rights is nowhere to be found, only clever end runs and literal destruction of rights Americans have always had.

Starkly missing from these plans is any direct attack on criminals — the whole game plan is aimed at firearms the public holds. It is a product of abject gun fear — hoplophobia — that afflicts the people behind the plan. They deny they’re hoplophobic, but just look at their plans, directed solely at restricting and eliminating guns — instead of the crime caused by criminals they nominally complain about. I noticed that all mentions of accident prevention, a former holy grail for the group, are gone.

The hypocrisy is unequivocal and self evident. Sarah claims, “We need to get these ‘killing machines’ off our streets.” Well, go ahead. Any person, on any street, operating any “killing machine” belongs in prison immediately under existing law, right? Everyone, even the Bradys, know this. It doesn’t matter if your gun is black, or too short, or holds the right amount of ammo.

The problem isn’t the “machines,” it’s the lack of law enforcement — in the bad parts of town and among the gangs where most of the problems occur (see maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm). They will not admit this, and they do not address this.

Instead, they act out on their phobia and attack you and me. The real problem of crime and violence is just an excuse for them to work on disarming people who didn’t do anything.

The Federal Bureaucracy of Investigation, along with the Bureaucracy of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives are in complete sympathy with the plan. The Brady plan will get them more staff, more office space, more of our money and more power, the acknowledged holy grail of bureaucrats.

Politically Corrected Glossary — of Bradyspeak

(See the entire glossary: http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm)

Full article here

I don’t carry a gun…

November 16, 2008

Some things never seem to change. Yet, others seem to go through metamorphism, grow, and just get better with age. Fine wine and Irish whiskey come to mind as well as tough old Boone and Crockett Bull Elk. Syd, over at Front sight Press takes this to new heights.

Hat tip to TexasFred for catching this!

Last year about this time, I wrote a piece called “I don’t carry a gun…” and it goes like this:

I don’t carry a gun…

November 13th, 2007 by Syd

… 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 my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.

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.

The piece struck a nerve with a lot of people and it proved to be very popular. It was copied to blogs, websites and forums hundreds of times and it remains the most linked to and copied piece of writing on the blog. The reception of this piece has been deeply gratifying. I never objected to any copying or re-posting of the piece anywhere. I was glad to make the contribution to the cause.

Recently, people have begun to do something with it that is driving me nuts: they are changing a couple of words and presenting it without attribution, as if it were their own work. Believe it or not, I have actually received three different versions of it in e-mail this week, each one slightly modified but carrying the core of the original piece. I should be flattered, I guess, but I’m not.

What’s the problem with this? First of all, it is copyrighted material that I own. I could sue over this if I were the litigious kind. More importantly, this is a signature piece of creative work that I did, and it’s not right for people to change a few words and present it as their own or as an anonymous internet piece. It would be like taking Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Raven,” changing the name to “The Big Black Bird,” and circulating it as your own. Put yourself in the author’s place and I think you will see the problem.

These things take on a life of their own, and I know that there is no real way to put a stop to it. In many ways I am delighted that I created a “viral” idea. I would ask from those of you who are readers and friends of mine that when you receive one of these or see one posted on a forum, that you refer the sender back to this page so that they can see the way the piece was originally written, who wrote it, and how it should rightfully remain.

Thanks.

Special note: Front Sight Press is not to be confused with Front Sight Training Center

Apply for a position with Obama

November 14, 2008

“Have you ever had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used — even unfairly — to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for government service?” –page 7, question 61 of the questionnaire required of prospective Obama administration cabinet members

One among 63 intrusive questions that will serve only to drive qualified people away, this question stood out for two reasons: Obama himself has many troubling associations (though that didn’t seem to matter to 66 million voters), and prospective cabinet members would have to answer, “Yes, I’m associated with Barack Obama.”

Political analyst Rich Galen also observed, “If this were an incoming Republican Administration, I guarantee you the name ‘McCarthy’ would be on every front page in the nation in describing [this questionnaire].”

And speaking of guns, question 59 reads, “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

Memo to Obama: Other than in the twisted world of Washington, DC, guns are not registered, nor should they be.

SOURCE: Patriot Post, of course

My response to a debate

September 8, 2008

First, I would like to thank Edger from Opposing Views for commenting.I looked over the debate there about guns, and if they make you safer or not. Vetted experts from both sides of this debate had free reign, and the discussion looks lively.

I may, or may not be considered an expert on this subject. My background is one that includes actually using a firearm to defend myself and others. As opposed to so many that talk about having frightened off an assailant with a firearm. I also spent more than twenty years in a major metropolitan area working as a Paramedic. That gave me a front row seat in the gun play scenario. Over the years I learned a few things from that experience. I also developed some pretty strong opinions after seeing things that happened to friends.

  • I never once saw an instance where a person had his or her firearm taken from them and then used against them. This is an urban myth that the hopolophobes continue to toss around that has little if any basis in fact. Think otherwise? Fine, show us the numbers…
  • I have known five women that were raped and had been denied the ability to effectively defend themselves. Read; they were denied the ability to own a firearm.
  • I have known seven women that stopped an attempted sexual assault using a firearm. See the above for comparison.
  • Kids with guns? Just last year a young man saved his mothers life when she was attacked by Pit Bulls that had already killed another woman in the Parker, Colorado area. While anecdotal many minors have saved family members from marauding bears in Canada.
  • Kids harming themselves or others “playing” with guns are the result of poor parenting, period. Teach your kids about firearms and those things will not be happening as often as they do. Which is about five times a year on average.
  • Gang Bangers’ are not kids playing with guns, they are criminals committing criminal acts. Learn to tell the difference.
  • Submitting to an assault is more likely to result in debilitating injury or death than effectively resisting according to the FBI. Don’t believe me? Look it up for yourself. If you refuse to do that then your mind is made up already, and fact or logic will not change that.
  • Shooting someone by mistake, such as a loved one is the result of poor, or no training. I recommend FRONT SIGHT or GUNSITE for the best training available in the world. Lacking that the NRA has low cost programs almost every where. Just remember, you get what you pay for.

I conclude with this statement: Guns save lives. Guns take lives. It is the person behind the weapon that is either good or evil, smart or stupid. A firearm is a tool. Nothing more.

Thunder in the Mountains

May 29, 2008

The thunder in the mountains and lightening in the sky of Colorado has nothing at all to do with the recent tornadoes. Rather, it has more to do with fundamental differences between people that believe that the United States Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. In other words, a head on clash between rational thought and liberalism.

On the rational side of the debate is Mike Rosen, a radio talk show host on 850KOA radio and columnist at the Rocky Mountain News. This, is what got things started:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/22/rosen-judicial-hubris-in-california/

On the liberal end is Paul Campos, also a columnist at the Rocky Mountain News, and, a professor of law at, you guessed it, The University of Colorado at Boulder. Not content with being a Ward Churchill supporter he seeks to make Mister Rosen appear foolish, and out of touch. That attempt can be found here:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/28/campos-an-impossible-exercise/

Paul Campos is one of “those” university professors that are usually referred to as “they.” They being professors that preach their agenda as being how things really are out there in the world. Professor Campos regularly supports the failed doctrine of a “Living Constitution.” Through that mechanism he preaches that Judicial Activism is right, and just. So long as it fits his liberal template. A little background may help any readers to understand: Professor Campos is a devout hopolophobe, a supporter of plagiarists Ward Churchill, and in general can be counted upon in any “Hate America First” situation.

Paul Campos, in my less than humble opinion, is why the early Americans invented Tar and Feathering. It is a tradition that should be revived.