Tag: Politics

This is How We Do It

Via Joe Huffman’s blog comes a story of how we pro-gunners do things. If you are an anti-gun mayor you’re going to be voted out. That’s what happened to Seattle’s own anti-gun mayor who was also conveniently a member of Bloomberg’s purposely deceptively named Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Don’t mess with us:

“When the mayor announced last year that he would ban legally-carried firearms from city property when he knew it would be contrary to the state’s preemption statute,” Gottlieb recalled, “it made tens of thousands of Seattle gun owners furious. Nickels insulted their intelligence by promising to ban guns by executive order, which is the height of municipal contempt for the rights of citizens under the state Constitution. He literally threw away their votes.”

CCRKBA Projects Director Thomas McKiddie, a West Seattle resident, said he and his gun-owning fellow Seattleites had simply had enough of the mayor’s condescension toward their rights to be safe on city streets, in parks and on other public property.

That was a bad idea because then this happens:

“I don’t know a single gun owner in Seattle who voted for Nickels,” McKiddie said. “After he threatened an executive order, he lost the nerve to actually issue one because he knew he would lose that fight in court. Instead, he included gun prohibitions in use contracts for the Seattle Center and other venues. He knew a citywide ban would be unenforceable, and his ouster demonstrates that Seattle gun owners were having none of it.”

Yup we aren’t shooting people like the anti-gunners claim, we are legally ousting those who would stand against us and our constitutional rights. Now if we can repeat this for a majority of the mayors in Mayors Against Illegal Guns we’ll be sitting well.

Media Bias, I Don’t Believe It

Man I find a treasure trove of great articles on Says Uncle. For instance apparently the media only feel those who oppose them and carry guns are worth shitting bricks over. Take a look at this article on MSNBC. From the article:

Holding anti-health care reform signs, soliciting car honks; the tenor of the shallow sea of signs the same.

Except for one counterprotester, apparently the only one within shouting distance. The man would only give his first name as he stood alone, wearing a Yankee baseball team shirt, a handgun on his hip, holding a contrary sign.

Oh shit he’s got a gun, PANIC! Well not so much:

“Part of my passion as a Democrat is the right to bear arms,” Josh said.

A veteran, and from a long family history of veterans, the man who was very much alone in the small crowd of protesters said he believed in fighting for the less fortunate.

“I am a firm supporter of health care for every American,” he said.

Wasn’t there panic and hysteria because people opposing government health care control brought guns to a protest? Shouldn’t there be equal panic and hysteria over a man for government health care control carrying a gun? I mean I thought the reason people were carrying guns to these protests was to intimidate the other side, that’s what the media said. Funny how they are outraged when people don’t agree with them and completely meh when people do agree with them.

MSNBC Try to Create Racism Where it Doesn’t Exist

From View From the Porch comes some very incriminating evidence against MSNBC. They did a story that tries to link the Obamessiah’s critics to racism, specifically gun owning critics of their god. The problem? Well they showed a man with a rifle at a health care rally to talk about evil white supremacists. They only show a close in of the rifle across the man’s back, the man was the black man with a gun in Arizona:

Yup just call of Obama’s critics racist, even if they are black.

Wait Laws Don’t Change Around the Obamessiah

Sweet, the White House actually stated that laws don’t changed just because the Obamessiah is in town. This in relation to citizens legally carrying guns to the health care events. Straight from the horses mouth:

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. “There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally,” he said. “Those laws don’t change when the president comes to your state or locality.”

We all knew this was true but it’s nice to hear a White House official come out and state it. Of course the anti-gun crowd aren’t amused:

“What Gibbs said is wrong,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It’s crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody.”

Such hysteria. You know it’s almost adorable when Paul’s mouth starts frothing and he begins screaming gibberish whilst swinging his head back and forth getting froth on anybody within a few feet. I would like him to state how people legally carrying guns endangers anybody with the exception of criminals who may show up to do something nefarious.

In fact due to the large number of people there and the possibility there could be criminals meaning to bring harm upon unarmed civilians I believe it’s dangerous and irresponsible for legally able people not to carry their guns to these events. And because I like to correct people when they’re wrong:

Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans’ event in Phoenix.

There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle. And assault rifle by definition is able to switch from semi-automatic to full-automatic or burst fire mode. If it can do either of the last two on that short list it’s not an assault rifle.

Obama’s Anti-Gun OSHA Nominee

Via the NRA ILA comes a story about Obama’s nominee, David Michaels, for the head of Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It’s not surprising that an Obama nominee would be anti-gun nor that the anti-gunner would be places in a position of such power. Nope certainly not surprising, but concerning.

OSHA has a lot of power being they dictate what is considered public health issues and what are not. If they believe something is a public health issue they can enact measures requiring employers to ban it. If the new nominee were to set his sights on guns he could very well enact policies that would require employees to disallow people from possessing guns while at work. Many employers currently will allow a person to carry a firearm if they have a carry license but OSHA could override this through regulations. Looking at the blog entry by Mr. Michaels I wouldn’t be surprised if he did decide to make guns an OSHA policy issue.

We need to contact our senators and tell them to bar Mr. Michael’s from becoming the head of OSHA.

Senator Wicker Introduces Bill to End Gun Restriction on Train Travel

Another pro-second amendment bill is being introduced, this time by Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi. The Bill, titled the Amtrak Secure Transportation of Firearms Act, would require Amtrak to enact regulations akin to those held by airlines for transportation of firearms.

As it stands right now Amtrak has a zero gun policy. Unlike the airlines that have regulations in place that allow you to transport you gun, Amtrak won’t even allow you to bring a gun that is unloaded and locked in a secure case. From the article:

The legislation states that if an Amtrak station accepts luggage for a specific route, passengers would be able to lawfully transport firearms and ammunition in secure baggage based on the following guidelines:

· Before checking the bag or boarding the train, the passenger must declare that the firearm or pistol is in his or her bag and is unloaded

· The firearm or pistol must be carried in a hard-sided container

· The hard-sided container must be locked and only the passenger has the combination or key for the container

Of course this won’t allow you to carry a gun even if your legally capable but it’s far better then the anti-gun zero ability policy currently in place. Apparently a similar amendment to a budge resolution was made earlier this year but was removed by the House.

Aw Poor DEA, Viktor Bout won’t be Extradited

Viktor Bout is an accused weapons dealer who was arrested by INTERPOL last year in Thailand. The Drug Enforcement Agency has been fighting to get him extradited to the United States since then. Well the Thailand court finally ruled and said no extradition will occur.

The DEA wanted him arrested because they claimed he was selling ground to air missiles to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. According to the DEA these missile could be used to target their agents working on Columbia to wipe out cocaine crops. Well Thailand doesn’t care as it’s not their fight and according to their court Mr. Bout broke no Thailand laws:

“The US charges are not applicable under Thai law,” said the judge delivering the hour-long verdict at Bangkok’s Criminal Court. “This is a political case. The Farc is fighting for a political cause and is not a criminal gang. Thailand does not recognise the Farc as a terrorist group.”

The court “does not have the authority to punish actions done by foreigners against other foreigners in another country”, the judge said.

You mean the Thailand court isn’t willing to extradite a man who is be accused of working against a foreign force in a foreign land? Man I wish the United States would learn that lesson. But I’ve been hoping Mr. Bout wouldn’t be extradited since I heard of his arrest for two major reasons.

First of all we have no business sending our people into Columbia to wage our war on drugs. The war on drugs has been a costly failure since day one and only accomplished making drug lords rich and powerful due to the fact illegal substances command a much higher value. The second reason because I don’t think the United States has any business telling people who they can sell weapons to. We sell our weapons all the time to other countries such as Iran and China. We’re are being hypocrites by saying we can sell weapons to some countries but nobody can sell weapons to countries or factions we don’t approve of.

I guess both of those reasons can be summed up by saying we have no business telling anybody outside of the United States what they can and can not do period. Especially if that person isn’t a United States citizen.

Media Bias and Health Care

We all know the media is bias on the Health Care Bill. We also know they are bias against gun owners. So when they can combine the two things get really nasty. There are a couple stories of people brining guns to various town hall meetings on government controlled health care (often called health care reform). The media is in a tirade about armed people trying to scare opponents into submission. In fact there is this article from the biased Huffington Post that is full of enough lies to convince you that’s all they had.

Reports indicate that “Tea Partiers” are also carrying concealed handguns into these events — yet few in the media have commented on the distorted view of the Second Amendment that is driving this call to arms.

So now we’re all tea partiers? That must be their new derogatory slang for those of us who describe to the ideas of liberty. Second of all there is no call to arms, there are people legally carrying guns for self defense at a place where people of opposing views may be willing to resort to violence.

The problem is that there are already a substantial number of well-armed Americans who believe our democratically-elected government has become oppressive. Indeed, last week Tea Partiers at a town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida, heckled Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) with repeated chants of “Tyranny!” Far from furthering democracy, however, these individuals have made important debate impossible, thereby limiting the political rights of all those who disagree with them.

Really? Screaming tyranny and believing, justifiable, that the government no longer works for them is somehow a bad thing? Not everybody involved in these tea parties are licensed carry holders anyways and no mention has been made about any of them having guns. This is a problem when the article is titled “Handguns and Health Care Reform.” This would be akin to me going off on a rant about the Mexican gun canard in this post.

And the pro-government health care people have made debate impossible by not allowing the other side to be heard. All the Obama town hall meetings that are televised never have questions form people against government controlled health care. The people against this bill are screaming because if they don’t they won’t be heard.

And this part is golden:

This year has already been marred by a series of horrific shootings involving individuals who hated our government and believed they had a constitutional right to strike against it: Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh, James von Brunn in the District of Columbia, Scott Roeder in Wichita, Gilbert Ortez, Jr. in Texas, etc. With tensions escalating at town halls across the country, the overwhelming majority of Americans who wish to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights must speak out against the violent, insurrectionist philosophy that has corrupted the Second Amendment.

Funny none of those mentioned people were striking against the government as far as I know. They were shooting innocent people. If they tried to kill a member of government then you can say they were using a belief that they could strike against the government.

There is no insurrectionist philosophy corrupting the second amendment. There are people who believe the government has become corrupt and also believe in the second amendment. But the second amendment isn’t being used exclusively, or even primarily, for insurrectionists. People legally carry guns are exercising their second amendment right, and when they speak at meetings they are also exercising their first amendment right.

I love how the anti-gunners try to paint a picture of violence over the second amendment and its supporters. These lies are the weapons of a coward who has no real argument against the object they oppose.

Professor Gate so Called Racist Arrest

Browsing Massad Ayoob’s blog I see he posted about the arrest of the Cambridge professor that everybody was screaming racism over. I didn’t bring it up here because I couldn’t find any good information on the story and all accounts I did find certainly lead me to believe the arrest was race inspired. But there is a critical piece of information I didn’t find anywhere else.

When the police officer asked Mr. Gates for his identification he presented his Harvard professor ID. Most, if not all, college IDs lack any mention of a resident address. Being the card didn’t have Mr. Gate’s address on it there was no way for the police officer to verify that he was the owner of the household and hence arrested him.

Of course Mr. Gates screamed racist but he’s spent a good deal of his life fighting racism. As they say a foot doctor sees all problems as foot problems. Likewise Mr. Gates probably sees most issues are racism and hence never stopped to think maybe a driver’s license would have been a better ID to present to the officer than his Harvard ID. Of course the media didn’t seem to pick up on this fact hence Officer Crowley will probably be forever remembered as a racist officer.