Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) vs. Common Sense

Listen to Sen. Bill Nelson peppering his remarks today with the words “common sense” regarding the gun control bill that will be voted on tomorrow.  C-SPAN covering the floor speeches concerning the up-coming gun control vote.  Nelson prefaced his remarks with an obligatory “I love guns!” story relating his own pro-gun activities like duck hunting.  Yawn.  Then he went on (and on and on) about “common sense” – regarding background checks and restricting magazines to no more than 10 bullets. No more high-capacity magazines. Saying it’s “common sense” to ban Assault Weapons that the Military uses showing his ignorance on “assault weapons” which has been refuted by  weapons experts for the last…..millennium.  Yawn.  “Common sense” this and “common sense” that.  Enough already.  HOW ABOUT the COMMON SENSE in upholding the gun laws already on the books?!  HOW ABOUT the COMMON SENSE in differentiating between GUN CONTROL vs. CRIME PREVENTION.

CRIME PREVENTION only WORKS if you enforce EXISTING GUN LAWS.  Let’s get off the run-away meme GUN CONTROL and replace it with Common Sense, wait for it, CRIME PREVENTION tactics.  Better yet —

SELF-CONTROL not gun control.

What a novel thought.

Stalin would be proud of the leftists employment of semantic engineering to advance their cause.  Saul Alinsky is doing cartwheels over his little-fisted napoleons reframing the real issue – our law enforcement refusing to engage in CRIME PREVENTION.

Advertisements

Open-fire, spray SUSPICIOUS vehicle with bullets on open road? You’re kiddin’ me

Since when has it been alright for lahw enfarcement to open-fire on a vehicle on the open roads of America?  (S)

open-fire-on-the-public.sm

Not since Bonnie & Clyde, I’d reckon!  Yes, yes, yes, I know lahw enfarcement are searching for this Dorner character, the 33 year old fugitive suspected of killing three people and injuring two others.  BUT COME ON!  Lahw enfarcement mistake the vehicle for Dorner’s pickup, open-fire on the vehicle injuring 2 mail carriers?!?  HOLY COW. This is nucking futz.

And to think, we all agree it’s outrageous when SWAHT teams kick down the door of the wrong house and spray the inside with bazookas killing innocent people. -oo- But now, Americans have to worry about being gunned down in public by trigger-happy LEcowboys out & about on a manhunt?!?

Megaphone Alert: Lahw Enfarcement to Americans:  PAY ATTENTION. We are conditioning you to the policies and procedures of the impending lahw enfarcement manifesto which may include open-fire on moving vehicles on our highways, pin-point drone attacks and surgical excision of targeted homesteads suspected to harbor ugly thoughts.

Please.professionals with a brain, moderate disposition and common sense, you need to pony up to the big kahunas and put a stop to this madness.  Stop talking about these abuses, lecturing the choir, and ‘safety-in-numbers’ C-SPAN appearances if you can’t deliver change to these lawless practices.  Otherwise, take another hit on your Hopium and ride outta town on your horse with no legs, howboutit?

Sen. Diane Feinstein, gun owner for *her* own protection vs. wants to take *your* gun! *hypocrite alert*

Here’s a good one to mull over hours before Prez-O takes to the podium to dictate what you are allowed in the World According to Garp, er, Grab-ber, as in, grabbing up all your Constitutional Rights squirreled away in your nest egg.  As Prez-O stands at the podium, backed by all his Enforcers backed by their Big Guns with their own Big Gunners, just think for a moment about how FAST and FURIOUS they are to get their gun ban laws enacted (BEFORE they clean their own house of illegal doings?).  You’ll only have your pitch forx to hold them off at the stand-off corral, ok?  And so, without further ado, here’s Diane Feinstein du jour senator, sitting in her congressional seat (where’s her seat belt??!!), rationalizing why she had to arm herself to her captive *snort* audience because she received death threats – and she was gonna shoot them first!  Gotta love these congressional Ghost GunBusters!

[HERE IS THE SPACE WHERE THE VIDEO WAS STRIPPED OUT ! um]

You can view it here.

It’s okay to screeeeeeam.  All is futile.

scream_munch_wee.jpg  scream_sm_cari.jpg  scream_heh.jpg  lynnMorag.jpg

Hey, gunny! Gun appreciation day is January 19, 2013.

Yessiree! Someone had to do it. Via Edmund Jenks article on Technorati‘s politics page , Gun Appreciation Day.com has stepped up to the plate.  Gun Appreciation Day website is a one-stop “shop” for those who want to learn more about the Petition to Defend Gun Rights and how you can participate on January 19, 2013.

Gun Appreciation Day is sponsored by organizations such as the Second amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee to Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano, Women Warriors PAC,  Americans’ Right to Arms, American Sovereignty PAC, Women Against Gun Control, and Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership to name a few.

Succinctly put, The Gun Appreciation Day’s sponsors are encouraging gun rights’ supporters to shop at gun stores and visit shooting ranges in protest over potential crackdowns.  Let’s do it, my fellowmen and women!

Presentation will secure George Will throughout the annuls of History

George Will’s lecture at Washington University on Religion & American Politics (which is airing on C-SPAN2 right now), is perhaps the Presentation of the Century.  I do not exaggerate.  For those who can’t watch it live, you may view it here.   The text can be found here.

For reasons that will become evident to the listener (or reader), George Will’s lecture on Religion & American Politics finally puts to rest the true intent and meaning behind our Constitution from the point of view of the authors, how the “progressive” movement in America took wings under the auspices of President Woodrow Wilson and defines what today’s progressive movement signifies for the future of our nation.  I can’t stress it enough, WATCH THIS VIDEO.  It covers EVERYTHING and will inspire you to new heights.

“Do Not Let Anyone Claim to Be a True American If They Ever Attempt to Remove Religion From Politics” – George Washington

Shout out to Patrick Sperry’s Conservative Libertarian Outpost for reblogging a previous post.

Senate about to vote on International Treaty

The Senate is going into Executive Session to, what I assume, hash out this Treaty (Document 112-7) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; a treaty that 36 Republicans signed a letter opposing international treaties during lame-duck session.  There are Republicans that believe the Treaty could be a threat to U.S. sovereignty.

 

Questions that arise for me are:

1. what else is in this Treaty that’s not being talked about in open session; does Treaty have a hidden agenda?
2. why would this Treaty take precedence over the other more urgent matters on the Congressional plate?
3. a first-bourne test for international law or “international liberal order” progression spoken about on other C-SPAN programs?

How to be a More Effective Advocate for Freedom..

Mistakes We Make in the Gun Culture, or
How to Be a More Effective Advocate for Freedom

By John Ross
9/14/05

Copyright 2003-2005 by John Ross. Electronic reproduction of this article freely permitted provided it is reproduced in its entirety with attribution given.

This is a piece I wrote a couple years ago, and I still get regular requests for it. Might as well put it on Ross In Range.

One of the biggest mistakes that freedom advocates make is we often fail to take the moral high ground on freedom issues, and we let our enemies define the terms. This is a huge mistake. Never forget: We are in the right on this issue. We are on the side of the Founding Fathers. They are on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and every other leader of an oppressive, totalitarian regime.

Let me give some common examples I’ve often heard when Second Amendment advocates debate gun control supporters:

THEY SAY: “We’d be better off if no one had guns.”

WE SAY: “You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns.” (FLAW: the implication here is that if you could succeed at eliminating all guns, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that’s unacceptable. Better we should require every citizen to carry a gun.”

THEY SAY: “Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer–they’re only for killing people.”

WE SAY: “I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they’re good practice.”

THEY SAY: “If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it.”

WE SAY: “Studies have shown blah blah blah” (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that’s not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don’t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We’d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?”

THEY SAY: “I don’t see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period.”

WE SAY: “It doesn’t do any good, criminals don’t wait five days, it’s a waste of resources blah blah blah.” (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods did reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WE SHOULD SAY: “Shall we apply your logic to the First Amendment along with the Second? How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn’t that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who already own a handgun tells me that it’s not about crime prevention, it’s about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a ‘safe’ one with the government as chief nanny.”

THEY SAY: “In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs.”

WE SAY: “Uh, well, uh…”

WE SHOULD SAY: “Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue–it’s in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the large field pieces that fired exploding shells. In 2005, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet.”

THEY SAY: “We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these dangerous weapons.”

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: “You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let’s put that aside for a moment. It’s interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can at any age go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size you want, and you don’t need to do anything if you don’t use them on public property. No license at all. If you do want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. Sounds great to me.”

FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: “You know, I’m amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything.”

THEY SAY: “Hunh?”

YOU SAY: “Well, passing this proposal won’t have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither George W. Bush nor Hillary Clinton is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did sixty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn’t it possible that a person like that might be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you really want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it by you?