For a few minutes today, I thought I had discovered a brand-new conspiracy.
Every Blogger site I visited, including this one, brought up the Google search window. Several other blogs came up with "can't find site".
Turns out Internet Exploder was bollixed - restarting it brought things back to normal.
And i was all set to bug out at a minute's notice there for a bit...
Friday, January 11, 2013
Gun Violence Video
Found here.
This guy demolishes all the lefty's anti-gun and gun control arguments with federal statistics.
This guy demolishes all the lefty's anti-gun and gun control arguments with federal statistics.
The NRA on the Wicked Witch's new gun ban
I'm going to give Diane Feinstein her own acronym - WWOTW.
Here's some of what the NRA knows about her latest wet dream:
Here's some of what the NRA knows about her latest wet dream:
Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill
There's more analysis of the bill at the link. Suffice it to say she's delusional if she thinks that this is in any way going to pass in the House.Some of the changes in Feinstein's new bill are as follows:
- Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.
- Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
- Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein's 1994 ban listed "grenade launcher" as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing "rocket launcher." Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add "nuclear bomb," "particle beam weapon," or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
- Expands the definition of "assault weapon" by including:
- Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.
- Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," except for tubular-magazine .22s.
- Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches," any "semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
- Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
- Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
- Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
- Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
- Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”
Another school shooting
No one killed in this one, but you can be sure that the anti-freedom crowd will try to run with this, too:
(CNN) -- A 16-year-old student who blasted a
California high school classroom with a shotgun Thursday was targeting
two classmates because he felt he'd been bullied, the local sheriff said
Thursday night.
+++++++++++++++++++
Supposedly, the shooter told a teacher "I don't want to shoot you". It should have been the teacher having the ability to make that statement.
A neighbor with a kid in the school saw the perpetrator walking with the gun, and thought it was "a toy". How is it that so many real toy guns result in instant police response, if not the shooting of an innocent, but witnesses can't call the cops when it appears there's a real danger of a tragedy?
California sheriff: Youth who shot classmate felt he'd been bullied
updated 3:57 PM EST, Fri January 11, 2013
Authorities say teacher Ryan Heber helped talk the gunman into handing over his weapon.
+++++++++++++++++++
Supposedly, the shooter told a teacher "I don't want to shoot you". It should have been the teacher having the ability to make that statement.
A neighbor with a kid in the school saw the perpetrator walking with the gun, and thought it was "a toy". How is it that so many real toy guns result in instant police response, if not the shooting of an innocent, but witnesses can't call the cops when it appears there's a real danger of a tragedy?
Gabby Giffords speaks
Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly launch battle against gun lobby: No more 'fear'
updated 6:04 PM EST, Tue January 8, 2013
Giffords takes on NRA
On the second anniversary
of a mass shooting in Arizona that wounded Giffords and killed six
others, the couple launched a political action committee, Americans for
Responsible Solutions, along with a website
calling for contributions to help "encourage elected officials to stand
up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun
ownership."
++++++++++++++
"protect responsible gun
ownership" - code for PREVENT gun ownership by law-abiding people.
Another of those who took an oath that she obviously either didn't understand or willfully ignored.
These people are more afraid of fear than they are of death by tyranny, evidently.
Guns and Freedom
Guns and freedom
Published January 10, 2013
FoxNews.com
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.Read the whole article. Word.
This is what makes Jugears Osama's second - and last, if there's any justice in the world - term as President so dangerous - he could appoint some more fellow travelers to the Supreme Court, and then the floodgates are open...
Republic for the united States of America
Informational information:
Sign up for yourself: Republic for the united States of America
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, January 10, 2013
EO?
Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?
Let him order all he wants. I'll ignore what he says just like I've done since 2008...
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Homegrown useful idiot
This time it's a RINO from Fond Du Lac:
Greetings in Freedom, As you are all well aware, in the wake of the Sandy Hook School shooting, many politicians who would really prefer to ban all guns, have used the tragedy to re-energize old proposals to begin to chip away at your right to own the kind of gun you prefer. Wisconsin Carry does not participate in fear-mongering, and we are cautious with your time and don't make "calls to action" until we believe a situation warrants immediate action. We believe this is one of those situations. Many anti-gun politicians have wanted to re-instate the Clinton "assault" weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 1999 This is no surprise. What is a surprise is when otherwise "pro-gun" politicians begin to throw your gun rights under the bus by agreeing with the gun-banning politicians and their proposals which would do NOTHING to prevent or even mitigate the carnage in these mass shooting situations. U.S. Representative Tom Petri(R)Fond Du Lac is ready to do just that. Tom Petri is quoted in the following article saying: --- “One thing that might be helpful, which I have supported in the past, is to limit the size of the (ammunition) clip,” Petri said. --- http://www.fdlreporter.com/article/20121219/FON0101/312190151/Petri-agrees-national-conversation-violence-needed?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1 Previous bans have limited the magazine capacity to 10 rounds or less. The vast majority of common semi-automatic handguns carried for self-defense by law-abiding citizens every day in Wisconsin hold 12 to 15 rounds of ammunition in their regular magazine that came with the gun. Limiting magazine capacity would do NOTHING to prevent mass shooters from inflicting their carnage. Use the following facts when you contact Rep. Petri Fact: The Clinton AWB was passed in 1994. It did nothing to limit the carnage in Columbine in 1999 when the shooters came in with multiple guns and dozens of 10 round magazines. It takes only seconds to drop a magazine from a gun and insert a new one. Fact: In the Virginia Tech Massacre the gunman used 2 guns and carried 19 extra magazines in a backpack with him as he went on his killing spree. Fact: The Shooter in the Sandy Hook elementary school was in the school for 10 minutes before taking his own life when police arrived. It takes less than 4 seconds to drop an empty magazine from a gun and insert a new fully loaded magazine. Limiting magazine capacity to an arbitrary 10 rounds wouldn't solve any problem, but it would make the magazines that came with millions of legally purchased, legally owned guns illegal. Millions of people already own them, tens of millions are already out in the market place. Criminals would not turn their's in. Only the law abiding would be affected. Even if they "grandfather" magazines already owned, the prices just skyrocket for individuals to sell the ones they already have. Please contact Tom Petri today! If you live in Tom Petri's district, you can email him from the following web-page: https://petri.house.gov/contact-me/email-me You can call and leave a message for Representative Petri at the following numbers: (202) 225-2476 (Washington DC office) Fond Du Lac Office: 490 West Rolling Meadows Drive, Suite B Fond du Lac, WI 54937 Phone: 920-922-1180 Fax: 920-922-4498 Oshkosh Office: 2390 State Road 44 Suite B Oshkosh, WI 54904 Phone: 920-231-6333 Fax: 920-231-0464 You can leave comments on Representative Petri's facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/thomaspetri Please take a few minutes today to contact Representative Petri. Its bad enough when anti-gun politicians want to take away your rights. Its even worse when pro-gun politicians want to sacrifice your rights when it wouldn't prevent a single mass shooting. Carry On, Nik Clark Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, inc. www.wisconsincarry.org nik@wisconsincarry.org www.facebook.com/wisconsincarry www.twitter.com/wisconsincarry www.youtube.com/wisconsincarry ------------------------------------------- Wisconsin Carry Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=16934492&id_secret=16934492-f974f796 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=16934492&id_secret=16934492-801119e7&post_id=20130109155711:21F55A92-5A9F-11E2-946B-954974431EBB Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
CREDO - A National Organization of Useful Idiots
Let's BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS and BIG CLIPS! Let's do it NOW!!!!!
++++++++++++++++
|
Idiots. Anyone who is familiar with how Stalin rewarded so many of the revolutionaries after 1917 should be very leery of giving the federal government any more power at all - especially tampering with the Constitution's ultimate safety valve.
Letter to the Editor
I just submitted this to the Janesville Gazette, in response to their article by Leonard Pitts, Jr., titled "Freedom to live in fear in this nation under the gun"
Dear Mr. Angus,
Not a part of my letter, just a comment. You allowed Leonard Pitts over 600 words to make specious, snarky comments about a basic human right and a vitally important subject, but in your letters policy, you limit the public to 250 words. I urge you to make an exception for this response. The subject matter is much too important to be subject to arbitrary limits. The following is 710 words.
Before you tell me that page space is expensive, let me ask how much Mr. Pitts or the Miami Herald paid for you to print his opinion.
OK - here's my letter:
Mr. Leonard Pitts, Jr. evidently has never studied history or read and understood the Constitution.
In Sunday's paper, he tells us that the NRA is pushing to have everyone armed all the time, in order to prevent more tragedies like Sandy Hook.
Sir, tragedy will always be with us. In all of human history, no man-made law has ever prevented evil people from performing evil acts. Advocating passing yet more un-Constitutional gun control laws on top of the 20,000-odd ineffective laws already on the books is a useless and dangerous waste of time.
The Sandy Hook attacker violated dozens of "gun laws", as well as several long-standing laws against theft and murder. The laws would allow the courts to administer punishment, but could never prevent the incident. The only possible way to prevent acts like this is for the potential victims to have easy and quick access to the tools that have been designed to deal with violent attackers.
This in no way says that all persons must carry a gun all the time any more than the risk of fire forces everyone to carry a fire extinguisher everywhere out of fear. The fire extinguisher is there for the use of those people trained to use it and willing to step up in an emergency, to hold off the threat until the professional firefighters arrive to douse the flames. If the extinguisher suffices to end the threat, that's fine - but if it is not available, all the victims can do is wait for help.
Guns are exactly the same thing as fire extinguishers - they are safety equipment designed to slow or stop the threat of a human or animal attacker, useable by anyone with a bit of training, regardless of physical strength, age, or disability.
Before anyone engages in hyperbole and says I want guns mounted in glass cases in every school hall, let me say two things. First, the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting or sport shooting. Second, the right to self-defense is not a right granted by any law or even by the Constitution - it is inherent in every living creature from birth. Having said that, carrying a defensive weapon is not for everyone - it is only for those who are willing to take on the responsibility for the power a gun confers on its' holder, and are willing to take the time to learn to use it properly.
In particular, Mr. Pitts relates several incidents as reasons everyone ought to be forced to either carry a gun or armed guards should be hired. He skips the fact that in several of these incidents, an armed private citizen stopped the attack without firing a shot, or that the attack occurred in a venue where weapons were already banned, leaving the occupants totally dependent on the good will of the attacker and the response time of the police. Soon after this article was published, we saw where a mother and her children hid in the attic from a home invader, who went on a search for them. The mother had a revolver, and defended her family - and the only person injured was the criminal. Stories like that unfortunately don't make good fodder for banning guns.
When you get right down to the bottom of the matter, the Second Amendment to our Constitution is there to prevent our government from growing out of control and becoming a threat to our freedom. The fact that American citizens have neglected to control their elected Representatives and Senators from enacting un-Constitutional laws and creating invasive bureaucracies does not alter this fact. America is a nation of laws and our Constitution is the basic law of the land. We as Americans need to tell our people in Washington to follow the law as written, or propose amendments to change it, and stop trying to prevent tragedy by disarming the innocent and defenseless. We also need to tell them to study history, in particular the history of the world since 1860, and how governments have grown into tyrannies. We also need to insist that all Americans and everyone visiting our country follow our basic laws and most importantly, take responsibility for their own safety and actions in all matters.
Chuck Kuecker
2511 W. Creedy Road
Beloit, WI 53511
Dear Mr. Angus,
Not a part of my letter, just a comment. You allowed Leonard Pitts over 600 words to make specious, snarky comments about a basic human right and a vitally important subject, but in your letters policy, you limit the public to 250 words. I urge you to make an exception for this response. The subject matter is much too important to be subject to arbitrary limits. The following is 710 words.
Before you tell me that page space is expensive, let me ask how much Mr. Pitts or the Miami Herald paid for you to print his opinion.
OK - here's my letter:
Mr. Leonard Pitts, Jr. evidently has never studied history or read and understood the Constitution.
In Sunday's paper, he tells us that the NRA is pushing to have everyone armed all the time, in order to prevent more tragedies like Sandy Hook.
Sir, tragedy will always be with us. In all of human history, no man-made law has ever prevented evil people from performing evil acts. Advocating passing yet more un-Constitutional gun control laws on top of the 20,000-odd ineffective laws already on the books is a useless and dangerous waste of time.
The Sandy Hook attacker violated dozens of "gun laws", as well as several long-standing laws against theft and murder. The laws would allow the courts to administer punishment, but could never prevent the incident. The only possible way to prevent acts like this is for the potential victims to have easy and quick access to the tools that have been designed to deal with violent attackers.
This in no way says that all persons must carry a gun all the time any more than the risk of fire forces everyone to carry a fire extinguisher everywhere out of fear. The fire extinguisher is there for the use of those people trained to use it and willing to step up in an emergency, to hold off the threat until the professional firefighters arrive to douse the flames. If the extinguisher suffices to end the threat, that's fine - but if it is not available, all the victims can do is wait for help.
Guns are exactly the same thing as fire extinguishers - they are safety equipment designed to slow or stop the threat of a human or animal attacker, useable by anyone with a bit of training, regardless of physical strength, age, or disability.
Before anyone engages in hyperbole and says I want guns mounted in glass cases in every school hall, let me say two things. First, the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting or sport shooting. Second, the right to self-defense is not a right granted by any law or even by the Constitution - it is inherent in every living creature from birth. Having said that, carrying a defensive weapon is not for everyone - it is only for those who are willing to take on the responsibility for the power a gun confers on its' holder, and are willing to take the time to learn to use it properly.
In particular, Mr. Pitts relates several incidents as reasons everyone ought to be forced to either carry a gun or armed guards should be hired. He skips the fact that in several of these incidents, an armed private citizen stopped the attack without firing a shot, or that the attack occurred in a venue where weapons were already banned, leaving the occupants totally dependent on the good will of the attacker and the response time of the police. Soon after this article was published, we saw where a mother and her children hid in the attic from a home invader, who went on a search for them. The mother had a revolver, and defended her family - and the only person injured was the criminal. Stories like that unfortunately don't make good fodder for banning guns.
When you get right down to the bottom of the matter, the Second Amendment to our Constitution is there to prevent our government from growing out of control and becoming a threat to our freedom. The fact that American citizens have neglected to control their elected Representatives and Senators from enacting un-Constitutional laws and creating invasive bureaucracies does not alter this fact. America is a nation of laws and our Constitution is the basic law of the land. We as Americans need to tell our people in Washington to follow the law as written, or propose amendments to change it, and stop trying to prevent tragedy by disarming the innocent and defenseless. We also need to tell them to study history, in particular the history of the world since 1860, and how governments have grown into tyrannies. We also need to insist that all Americans and everyone visiting our country follow our basic laws and most importantly, take responsibility for their own safety and actions in all matters.
Chuck Kuecker
2511 W. Creedy Road
Beloit, WI 53511
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Just try it!
Please. See how far you get before you find out what real justice is...
(CNSNews.com)
- A Democratic state lawmaker in Iowa told an Iowa newspaper he not
only wants semi-automatic weapons banned in his state, he would like to
see the weapons confiscated from anyone in Iowa who has already bought
them.
“We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them,” Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) told the Carroll (Iowa) Daily Times-Herald. “We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons. We should ban those in Iowa.”
Staff writer Douglas Burns reported that Muhlbauer supports a statewide ban and a voluntary buy-back plan, “but he would go further if needed” -- and that “the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.”
“Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Muhlbauer was quoted as saying. “We can’t have those out there. Because if they’re out there they’re just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too many guns.”
+++++++++++++++++
It ain't about hunting, Einstein.
Demonrat. Lamp post. Rope. Some assembly required...
Iowa Lawmaker on 'Semi-Automatic' Firearms: 'I Think We Need to Start Taking Them'
“We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them,” Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) told the Carroll (Iowa) Daily Times-Herald. “We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons. We should ban those in Iowa.”
Staff writer Douglas Burns reported that Muhlbauer supports a statewide ban and a voluntary buy-back plan, “but he would go further if needed” -- and that “the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.”
“Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Muhlbauer was quoted as saying. “We can’t have those out there. Because if they’re out there they’re just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too many guns.”
+++++++++++++++++
It ain't about hunting, Einstein.
Demonrat. Lamp post. Rope. Some assembly required...
Wisconsin Carry on the air
Greetings in Freedom, I have been invited to be a guest on Wisconsin Public Radio tomorrow (Wed. Jan 9th) from 7:05 to 8am on the Joy Cardin Morning Drive (guest hosted by Rob Ferret) The topic of discussion will be President Obama's new gun control push in the wake of the Sandy Hook school tragedy. Those interested can listen online at www.wpr.org You can also find a list of your local radio stations that carry WI Public Radio from the website. Lastly, If you haven't "liked" Wisconsin Carry's facebook page yet, we invite you to do so. www.facebook.com/wisconsincarry Wisconsin Carry is also launching a new website in the next couple of weeks. We will send a notice around when that is live. Our old website will be fully functional for new members to join and/or merchandise until the new site goes live. Carry On! Nik Clark Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc. www.wisconsincarry.org nik@wisconsincarry.org www.facebook.com/wisconsincarry www.twitter.com/wisconsincarry ------------------------------------------- Wisconsin Carry Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=16934492&id_secret=16934492-f974f796 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=16934492&id_secret=16934492-801119e7&post_id=20130108122333:1F394B2A-59B8-11E2-9290-FAA474B95486 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Free CCW class
Greetings in Freedom, We are about to enter our "busy" season for free concealed carry classes now that the holidays are over. We have the first class of the new year in the schedule: In order to receive you concealed carry license you have to have "proof of training" Wisconsin Carry is offering a free concealed carry license training class. If you attend this class you will leave with your proof of training certificate. That and an application you download from the Wisconsin Dept. of Justice website is all you need to get your concealed carry license (you also have to pay the DOJ $50 application fee) Usually these classes cost about $100 but Wisconsin Carry offers them for free. Class is free and open to the public. Feel free to share with friends and family. Details: Town of Delavan in Walworth County 1/26/13 from noon to 4:00. To register, go to http://www.planetreg.com/E13141913163595 We will NOT be accepting on site registration you must use the link above to register for the class. Location details when you register. Please stay tuned for future emails. Wisconsin Carry has a new website that is virtually complete and will be launched in the next week or two. That website will have a class schedule. In addition ALL classes are posted to our facebook page: www.facebook.com/wisconsincarry If you haven't "liked" that page yet, please do so as we post every class to that page as soon as it comes to fruition. Carry On! Nik Clark Chairman/President - Wisconsin Carry, Inc. www.wisconsincarry.org nik@wisconsincarry.org www.facebook.com/wisconsincarry www.twitter.com/wisconsincarry ------------------------------------------- Wisconsin Carry Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=16934492&id_secret=16934492-f974f796 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=16934492&id_secret=16934492-801119e7&post_id=20130108120759:EA0DE854-59B5-11E2-9AA7-B1E51B81C28E Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Monday, January 7, 2013
Logical end
Mr. Pitts wants us to use "logic" to deal with violent people:
He goes on to give us some good examples of how "the NRA's" reasoning will affect America:
Why do otherwise intelligent people have to resort to this sort of hyperbole when presented with the idea that the presence of armed citizens just might have a salutary effect on the outcomes of violent incidents that cannot be predicted or prevented by any combination of laws?
I'll give you some corresponding logic. From Wikipedia:
The NRA has never insisted that "all" be armed "all the time", or that they carry any particular type of firearm. The NRA only suggests that the presence of the proper safety equipment, wielded by properly trained individuals, could just possibly prevent some deaths and injuries the next time someone decides to exit his life spectacularly, with a lot of company.
Shame on you, Mr. Pitts.
NRA puts one nation under the gun
By Leonard Pitts Jr.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
Everybody’s got a pistol. This must really please the NRA. – from Gun by Gil Scott-Heron
So maybe the NRA is about to get its wish.
Here we are, a little over three weeks after the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., a little over two weeks after the National Rifle Association said there should henceforth be armed guards at every school, and at least one school system, Marlboro Township in New Jersey, is taking its advice. Under a pilot program in partnership with local police, students who returned to school last week found their campuses patrolled by armed officers.
But here’s the thing. If this is truly a good idea — “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” said NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre in a news conference — then why stop there? After all, it is not just our schools that are being shot up. So let us follow this advice to its logical end.
+++++++++++++++So maybe the NRA is about to get its wish.
Here we are, a little over three weeks after the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., a little over two weeks after the National Rifle Association said there should henceforth be armed guards at every school, and at least one school system, Marlboro Township in New Jersey, is taking its advice. Under a pilot program in partnership with local police, students who returned to school last week found their campuses patrolled by armed officers.
But here’s the thing. If this is truly a good idea — “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” said NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre in a news conference — then why stop there? After all, it is not just our schools that are being shot up. So let us follow this advice to its logical end.
He goes on to give us some good examples of how "the NRA's" reasoning will affect America:
Two people were killed and one injured on Dec. 11 by a gunman who started shooting at a shopping mall near Portland. So we should have armed guards at all our shopping malls.Conveniently missing - or ignoring - the fact that a concealed pistol carried by a bystander stopped the shooting, without firing a shot. The mere presence of the armed shopper caused the shooter to fire one last round - into himself. If that person had not been armed, how many would have died before the second responders - police - arrived with their "acceptable" guns?
Two people were killed and two others injured Nov. 6 when an employee started shooting inside a chicken processing plant in Fresno. So we should have armed guards at all our chicken processing plants.The presence of just one armed employee might have prevented this one, also. I'll wager that the plant was a "no weapons" area as most corporations are.
Why do otherwise intelligent people have to resort to this sort of hyperbole when presented with the idea that the presence of armed citizens just might have a salutary effect on the outcomes of violent incidents that cannot be predicted or prevented by any combination of laws?
I'll give you some corresponding logic. From Wikipedia:
The Our Lady of the Angels School Fire broke out shortly before classes were to be dismissed on December 1, 1958, at the foot of a stairway in the Our Lady of the Angels School in Chicago, Illinois. The elementary school was operated by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. A total of 92 pupils and 3 nuns lost their lives when smoke, heat, and fire cut off their normal means of escape through corridors and stairways. Many more were injured when they jumped from second-floor windows (which were as high as a third floor would be on level ground).Sarcasm on:
So, we should force all schools to have modern sprinkler systems and means of escape in all classrooms above the first floor, and force all the teachers and students to learn how to react to a fire and use fire extinguishers.Stupid, isn't it?
The NRA has never insisted that "all" be armed "all the time", or that they carry any particular type of firearm. The NRA only suggests that the presence of the proper safety equipment, wielded by properly trained individuals, could just possibly prevent some deaths and injuries the next time someone decides to exit his life spectacularly, with a lot of company.
Shame on you, Mr. Pitts.
Will YOU resist when they come for your guns?
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?
I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.Another taste:
Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.
It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.
If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.Read the whole thing.
I sure as hell am going to resist, come that day.
Why the gun is civilization
There is nothing I can add to improve this. Masterful.
Reprinting the whole thing by Marko at The Munchkin Wrangler:
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason
and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under
threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two
categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Reprinting the whole thing by Marko at The Munchkin Wrangler:
why the gun is civilization.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Be ever vigilant
Averted for now - for how long?
| Having trouble viewing this email? Click here |
 |
URGENT ALERT – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY ILLINOIS HOUSE ADJOURNS WITH NO MOVEMENT ON GUN BILLS – BUT DO NOT BE MISLED |
|
|
|
|
   |
| ||
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Ill-Annoys dodges the bullet!
For now - new session starts next week...
|
Firearm Alert Vol. 8, No. 7
President for Life!
The last time we had an unabashed socialist in the White House, we amended the Constitution to limit the President's career.
So, it makes sense that for the first unabashed Communist president, we should entertain the idea of removing those limits:
So, it makes sense that for the first unabashed Communist president, we should entertain the idea of removing those limits:
H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, ...
Trouble brewing
Jugears Osama wants more gun control, and he wants it NOW:
Vice President Joe Biden, tasked with heading a commission to investigate gun violence, has been quietly meeting with experts, interest groups, and public officials and is expected to release a set of recommendations within weeks. Boston mayor Thomas Menino, co-chair of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told the Boston Herald this week that an optimistic Biden had assured him that Obama would sign legislation “by the end of January.”
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Obama's secret plan to reclassify your guns
President may ban certain firearms with 1 simple move
We already know the BATFE to be a capricious creator of bullshit rules, so letting them "reclassify"existing weapons like they did with certain shotguns (Street Sweeper) magically becoming Class III weapons...McCain planning some dirty dealing?
Could be. We've seen similar antics from RINOs in the past:
| |||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)