IT'S OFFICIAL! You no longer need to pay taxes!
Julian Bond says it's legitimate for the IRS to target the Tea Party.
What if God was pointing back?
Make a difference & write these people: Executive Director: Dr. Charles Breithaupt Department email: director@uiltexas.org Department fax: 512-471-5908 Deputy Director: Jamey Harrison Email: info@uiltexas.org Chief of Staff: Kim Carmichael Email: cos@uiltexas.org - See more at: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/05/track-team-disqualified-over-runners-gesture-to-godc/#sthash.e97Jz8Fx.dpuf
The flag.
I've always flown the flag on important days such as Independence Day, Memorial Day and the like. But it wasn't until September 11, 2001 that I flew the flag every day. And it has adorned my home every day since that fateful day. On that day I flew it as a sign as unity, defiance and national pride. I still fly it for those same reasons along a few others. It was almost impossible to find a home that didn't display a flag back then. It may have been a large one hung from a pole or a simple one on a stick stuck in a flower pot. Some just displayed the simple cardboard one in their front window that our local newspaper gave away. But as time passed, the flags became faded, worn and tattered. They were eventually taken down but sadly, not many were replaced. I'm not suggesting those neighbors of mine didn't care anymore or that they weren't sympathetic to the tragedy of September 11th. Nor am I suggesting they forgot those who died that day. I know they supported the troops who fought to rout the Taliban and Al Quida from Afghanistan. And whether they were for or against the invasion of Iraq, they were proud of our military personnel. But for whatever reasons, the display of flags never returned in the numbers they had been. Maybe people figured they were moving on. Maybe they just thought it was okay to let it go or that they had healed sufficiently. I don't know.
I'm not suggesting that I am somehow a better or more patriotic American or person in general than those who didn't display the flag anymore. After all, it's the simplest of gestures one can make. It's not like I volunteered to join the Army or anything. I certainly didn't storm the Helmand province of Afghanistan or rescue a comrade while liberating Fallujah. But I am proud to pay homage to those who did - along with all those who make the sacrifice to defend us every day. And I fly it to honor those who sacrificed what Lincoln called; "the last full measure of devotion".
Yes, it's more than a combination of colors and geometric shapes that make up our flag. It's been raised at Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima and the Sea of Tranquility on the lunar surface. And perhaps just as importantly, my front door. Maybe yours as well. It's not a decoration or appendage to the house. It stands on it's own. It always has. All I know is it looks majestic even beautiful as it catches a light breeze and slowly floats on the current of air - almost alive. And perhaps it is.
It's open season on Christians. Happy Easter.
The Easter season is upon us. For Christians, it celebrates the resurrection of our savior, Jesus Christ. The belief in a life after this one. The gift of Christ's sacrifice and a promise of eternal life. To the haters, it simply offers another opportunity to take a crack at those Bible thumpers. While attacking Christians at Christmas seem to be the optimum time to display their hate, apparently Easter is too big a target to let pass by as well. I recently viewed posts on a website that displayed anti-Christian photos and vile attacks upon believers. I have never understood the passion of non-believers. Why dedicate so much time, effort and energy to protest something you don't believe exists? Seems to be a terrible waste of their time if you ask me. Perhaps they should take up a hobby. Butterfly collecting perhaps. I don't care if someone is a non-believer. Their lack of faith doesn't impact me. But apparently they are set into a frenzy by believers - Christians mostly. Ever notice how silent the religious haters are when Islam and the Jewish faith are concerned? The silence is deafening. And there are reasons for that. Of course, America is mostly a Christian country where faith is concerned. That makes us the biggest target. But that's not the only reason. Those who practice the Jewish faith respond to hate when it's spewed their way. They have quite a lot of experience in being oppressed. To paraphrase Dee Snyder "they're not gonna' take it". Plus even atheists will give Jews a pass every now and then. Islam is NEVER a target of the non-believers. There's a good reason for that as well. Mostly, the haters are afraid they'll be targeted by Muslims of shall we say - intense belief. Hey atheists! If you want to show how tough you are, draw a picture of the Prophet Mohammad and stick that in a jar of urine, like you did to the Virgin Mary in an "art exhibit". You wont though, will you? No. Gutless pussies. Because you only go after low hanging fruit. Christians seldom fight back. We hold our tongues not wanting to be confrontational, less we be portrayed as being rigid and intolerant. But you revel in being confrontational. It's not enough to disagree with our faith, you must attempt to ridicule it. In doing so, you show your lack of humanity, compassion and kindness - actual tenants of the Christian faith. Generally speaking, I have never met a more miserable and intolerant group of people as non-believers are. They act as though our beliefs disgust and somehow endanger them. But in reality, I believe they secretly wish they had such a liberating support system Christianity offers. And of course, they can. Christianity has no entry exam. You don't have to be sponsored to be saved in God's love. But I find many atheists unable to see an entity larger than themselves. They see themselves at the top of the Universe's food chain. So be it. Enjoy. But I cannot imagine the emptiness they must feel. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect Americans FROM religion. It protects the freedom OF religion. It guarantees the expression and practice of religion. The liberals have twisted the real intent of the 1st amendment for their own agenda and purposes. And they have been able to get away with it in part, due to the mis-education of the Constitution and a complicit media. But you need not worry. We will pray for you anyway - whether you like it or not.
Concealed carry is good for business.
If a business isn't smart enough to figure that out for themselves, I'd have to question other decisions they may be making. However, there are some business owners who get it from the start. Last month a pizza shop in Virginia Beach offered a 15% discount to anyone who placed an order in his restaurant who openly carried a firearm - which is legal in Virginia. Business took off! So much in fact, the temporary promotion may become permanent. Business at the shop was busy and safe. In fact, I'd have to imagine it was the safest business in Virginia Beach. The sight of all those legally carrying law abiding citizens assured it.
The next Revolution. Are you part of it?
I hear talk of desperation among some conservatives. I hear how the mainstream press is against us - a tool of the administration. How difficult it is to get the message of limited government across to the masses. How to cling to a more traditional view of American values is difficult and ridiculed - the demographics of America are changing and the odds are stacked against us. We wont play Santa Claus to those who want and demand more unaffordable entitlements. Personal responsibility isn't as attractive as Big Daddy government. And who needs a gun with more than 7 rounds anyway? To which I say - buck up!
Nobody is asking you to pick up a musket and storm an enemy encampment. No one is requiring you to march 20 miles through a snowstorm with rags as shoes, then fight the enemy on their turf. And nobody demands you sacrifice your livelihood as you battle the enemy. But you are required to be a participant in your own revolution. You can write letters to the editor in your local newspaper. You can be vocal about your views - express them politely but with passion. You can post stories and images that espouse the opinions, beliefs and agenda of the conservative movement. We're on the right side of history. Use the tool of undisputed logic. Unlike our forefathers who sacrificed everything, you only need sacrifice a little time and a bit of effort. We may be marching uphill at the moment. But make no mistake - we are marching. Are you in step?
A gun control lesson for Liberals
"People are being killed by guns."
Yes, they are. (Then again, even more people are being killed by cars.) But ask yourself, who is doing the killing? Mostly people who didn't get their guns legally. Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Is it working? Nope. Last year over 500 murders were committed in Chi-town. Chicago Police say the influx and usage of illegal guns is of "epidemic proportions". Their words. Those murders aren't being committed by legal gun owners. Why aren't the gun laws there working? The criminal element doesn't care about laws. That's why they're criminals. Heroin, pot, crack and prostitution are also illegal. Yet in most places you can get all of them in about an hour from your home. Prohibition was illegal too. How'd that work out?
"A child is more likely to die or be injured by a gun when it's in the home."
Uh huh. And you're more likely to fall down stairs in a split level home than a ranch home. But the number one cause of children's death in the home is accidental drowning. That includes drowning in bathtubs, pools, toilets and buckets. Yes, buckets. On average, 87 children a year will drown in a bucket. Do you want the government dictating bucket diameter and liquid capacity? The number one place children die is in an automobile accident. We've got plenty of laws regarding cars. Of course, we could ban cars, then no child would die in a car crash.
"But if only the military and Police had guns, we'd be safer."
Britain banned private ownership of guns in 2005. Gun crimes increased 500%. Again, the criminal element will always get their hands on guns just like illegal drug, etc. All this does is disarm the law abiding public. Does that make you safer?
"Nobody needs a 30 round gun magazine."
Says who? Nobody needs a large V8 engine or motor home. Nobody needs a 60 inch plasma TV. Nobody needs a 3000 sq. ft. home either. For that matter, no one needs a plethora of specific things. Who gets to decide? A large capacity magazine can be used in hunting or self defense. Besides, a 30 round magazine in the hands of a law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone. A 7 round magazine in the hands of a criminal or nut job is quite dangerous. I can fire my personal 15 round magazine, drop the empty, reload a second 15 round magazine and empty that one in about 25 seconds - on a bad day. That's "30" rounds. But I'm no threat to anyone whose not a threat to me.
"Assault rifles should be banned."
Good News! Assault rifles are banned for private ownership. The fact is the rifles you see depicted in the news (AR-15's) are not Assault Rifles. (And no, "AR" does not stand for "assault rifle". It stands for Armalite, the company who developed the piece) A true assault rifle would have to be a fully automatic weapon. Meaning if you keep the trigger depressed, the rifle keeps firing. (Think machine gun) Those weapons have been illegal for private ownership since the 1930's. You must pull an AR-15's trigger every time you want to fire a round - just like every other firearm.
"But those assault rifles look so intimidating."
So does the hot blonde at the end of the bar. So? You can paint racing stripes on a Pinto but that doesn't make it a race car, does it. The so-called assault rifles you speak of just have the look of a true military assault rifle. A black plastic stock vs. a walnut one doesn't make the rifle anymore murderous.
"The 2nd Amendment is antiquated. You don't have to hunt for your dinner anymore."
Read virtually anything by the founding fathers regarding private gun ownership. Washington, Mason, Madison, Jefferson. Not once do they mention hunting quail. They were very adamant - guns in the hands of the people keep them safe from both criminals and a tyrannical government. They mistrusted government which is why they wanted it to be limited. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'm not sure why that's so difficult for some people to grasp?
"But the founders never imagine multi-round magazines"
They probably never imagined rocket propelled grenade launchers, tanks and drones at the government's disposal either. So what's your point?
"There are just too many people killed by guns."
The number one manner in which people are killed in the U.S.is car accidents - 40,000 a year. Over 3500 children are aborted every day. Nobody can defend themselves with a Chevy Malibu or aborted fetus. But I can defend myself with a Ruger 9mm.
"Wouldn't limiting magazine capacity make sense?"
New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo seems to think so though. Magazine capacity there is now limited to 7 rounds. I'm sure the wack jobs and criminals will pay heed to that new regulation. Right? What happens when someone is killed by a 7 round max firearm? Do we reduce capacity to 5? Then 3? How about only allowing single shot muskets?
"Why does the NRA fight these regulations? They appear to make sense."
Things aren't always what they appear to be. Laws designed to keep us safe, usually don't. They just restrict us and create the illusion of safety. What happens after magazine capacity is reduced? The anti-gun crowd is already targeting specific firearms. It wont be long before they'll want to restrict certain caliber guns. South American countries do. They don't allow calibers higher than what the military uses. Say good-bye to .45, .40 and 9mm guns. Before you know it, we'll only have guns powerful enough to kill backyard rabbits and that's about all. Though the bad guys will still be able to get all the firepower they want. Gun confiscation will not come in one swoop. It will be incremental. And every right lost will be a right lost for good.
Maybe none of these arguments will work. Libs are like Windows 8. They come pre-loaded and it's difficult to uninstall certain programs. If nothing else, you'll enjoy that stupid look on their face when they have no legitimate comeback.
"A child is more likely to die or be injured by a gun when it's in the home."
Uh huh. And you're more likely to fall down stairs in a split level home than a ranch home. But the number one cause of children's death in the home is accidental drowning. That includes drowning in bathtubs, pools, toilets and buckets. Yes, buckets. On average, 87 children a year will drown in a bucket. Do you want the government dictating bucket diameter and liquid capacity? The number one place children die is in an automobile accident. We've got plenty of laws regarding cars. Of course, we could ban cars, then no child would die in a car crash.
"But if only the military and Police had guns, we'd be safer."
Britain banned private ownership of guns in 2005. Gun crimes increased 500%. Again, the criminal element will always get their hands on guns just like illegal drug, etc. All this does is disarm the law abiding public. Does that make you safer?
"Nobody needs a 30 round gun magazine."
Says who? Nobody needs a large V8 engine or motor home. Nobody needs a 60 inch plasma TV. Nobody needs a 3000 sq. ft. home either. For that matter, no one needs a plethora of specific things. Who gets to decide? A large capacity magazine can be used in hunting or self defense. Besides, a 30 round magazine in the hands of a law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone. A 7 round magazine in the hands of a criminal or nut job is quite dangerous. I can fire my personal 15 round magazine, drop the empty, reload a second 15 round magazine and empty that one in about 25 seconds - on a bad day. That's "30" rounds. But I'm no threat to anyone whose not a threat to me.
"Assault rifles should be banned."
Good News! Assault rifles are banned for private ownership. The fact is the rifles you see depicted in the news (AR-15's) are not Assault Rifles. (And no, "AR" does not stand for "assault rifle". It stands for Armalite, the company who developed the piece) A true assault rifle would have to be a fully automatic weapon. Meaning if you keep the trigger depressed, the rifle keeps firing. (Think machine gun) Those weapons have been illegal for private ownership since the 1930's. You must pull an AR-15's trigger every time you want to fire a round - just like every other firearm.
"But those assault rifles look so intimidating."
So does the hot blonde at the end of the bar. So? You can paint racing stripes on a Pinto but that doesn't make it a race car, does it. The so-called assault rifles you speak of just have the look of a true military assault rifle. A black plastic stock vs. a walnut one doesn't make the rifle anymore murderous.
"The 2nd Amendment is antiquated. You don't have to hunt for your dinner anymore."
Read virtually anything by the founding fathers regarding private gun ownership. Washington, Mason, Madison, Jefferson. Not once do they mention hunting quail. They were very adamant - guns in the hands of the people keep them safe from both criminals and a tyrannical government. They mistrusted government which is why they wanted it to be limited. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'm not sure why that's so difficult for some people to grasp?
"But the founders never imagine multi-round magazines"
They probably never imagined rocket propelled grenade launchers, tanks and drones at the government's disposal either. So what's your point?
"There are just too many people killed by guns."
The number one manner in which people are killed in the U.S.is car accidents - 40,000 a year. Over 3500 children are aborted every day. Nobody can defend themselves with a Chevy Malibu or aborted fetus. But I can defend myself with a Ruger 9mm.
"Wouldn't limiting magazine capacity make sense?"
New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo seems to think so though. Magazine capacity there is now limited to 7 rounds. I'm sure the wack jobs and criminals will pay heed to that new regulation. Right? What happens when someone is killed by a 7 round max firearm? Do we reduce capacity to 5? Then 3? How about only allowing single shot muskets?
"Why does the NRA fight these regulations? They appear to make sense."
Things aren't always what they appear to be. Laws designed to keep us safe, usually don't. They just restrict us and create the illusion of safety. What happens after magazine capacity is reduced? The anti-gun crowd is already targeting specific firearms. It wont be long before they'll want to restrict certain caliber guns. South American countries do. They don't allow calibers higher than what the military uses. Say good-bye to .45, .40 and 9mm guns. Before you know it, we'll only have guns powerful enough to kill backyard rabbits and that's about all. Though the bad guys will still be able to get all the firepower they want. Gun confiscation will not come in one swoop. It will be incremental. And every right lost will be a right lost for good.
Maybe none of these arguments will work. Libs are like Windows 8. They come pre-loaded and it's difficult to uninstall certain programs. If nothing else, you'll enjoy that stupid look on their face when they have no legitimate comeback.
Send money, guns and lawyers. But mostly the first two.
Seems to me I remember the Democrats talking big chew about how the weapons we gave Saddam Hussein in the 1980's could be used against us during the Gulf War. Suddenly an epidemic of amnesia sweeps Washington.
Now, admittedly I don't possess the incredible intellect of our Commander-in-Chief, but for the life of me I can't see the advantage of arming a country with an extremely shaky government with modern weapons of war. Plus I don't think the new tenants care much for the neighbors named, Israel. So, we're arming a potential adversary of our best friend. Could someone please explain it to me? And isn't this kinda' like nation building?
Apparently Barack and his Democratic party henchmen don't trust you with a 15 capacity magazine for your 9mm handgun, but thinks it's all lolly pops and sunshine to give the Muslim Brotherhood tanks. The President and his allies wants a national background check on any American who purchases a gun. Seems to me they neglected to do a proper background check on the new Egyptian regime.
These are the people Obama DIDN'T trot out when discussing gun violence.
For instance, we didn't see 71 year old Samuel Williams who defended himself and everyone in an Ocala, Florida Internet Café on July 18, 2012, when two thugs stormed in, brandished a gun and attempted to rob patrons at gunpoint. Mr. Williams withdrew his legally concealed pistol, fired at the armed intruders and potentially saved lives. (The goons ran out of the establishment like scared rabbits) They were later apprehended.
Nor did you see Debi Keeney, 47 of Highland, Missouri. She shot an intruder who forced his way into her apartment at 3 a.m. and threatened her 55 year old wheelchair bound sister. Debi didn't much enjoy watching her sister turn blue as the assailant choked her sister while demanding money - so she shot the SOB. Must have come as quite a surprise to the guy.
You also didn't see the Loganville, Georgia woman whose house was invaded by 32 year old Paul Slater. Mr. Slater, who has been arrested 6 times since 2008 and was recently released from prison, thought it would be a good idea to use a crowbar and break into the home's front door. He was mistaken. The woman had her two small children at home. She withdrew to a home office area in an attempt to hide from Slater. He entered the room and she promptly fired 5 shots, several of them entering Paul's face. Oooh! Unless you're Superman, that's gotta' hurt!
Last June in Phoenix, Arizona a 14 year old boy who was babysitting his siblings ages 8,10 and 12 shot a home intruder. The 37 year old intruder was armed but never got a shot off. The teen grabbed his father's 38 revolver and shot the scumbag as he charged the boy. This happened in an upper-middle class neighborhood at 4:30 in the afternoon. The youngster didn't appear during the State of the Union address either.
In all of the above mentioned instances, the potential victims used guns to save either themselves, loved ones or innocent strangers from imminent carnage. But such usage of legally owned firearms wasn't even mentioned. This President much prefers the adoration of victim hood. Those innocents in Connecticut last December were victims. But he wont discuss the non-victims I just did, because they don't fit into his arguments and ideology. Facts be dammed. While we mourn the loss of innocent life, we apparently don't celebrate the saving of innocent life when a gun is involved. A gun is a tool, nothing more. Yes, it can take a life. But so can a hammer. And last year more people were murdered by hammers than so-called assault rifles. Yet no one is considering limiting the sale, size or weight of hammers. Well, not yet.
Think your vote counts? Think again.
Republicans have virtually no chance of winning states like California and New York. These two electoral laden states give Democrats a tremendous advantage in national elections. It's no wonder the Dems don't want to make any changes. They're already calling possible proportional distribution of electoral votes "vote rigging". Uh huh. What they really mean is, the system as it currently works to their advantage. So why would they want it changed? As it now stands, Florida and Ohio usually decide Presidential elections. Virtually every other state is pretty much spoken for. So why bother voting if you don't live in the Sunshine or Buckeye state?
Even if proportional votes were awarded in every state, Barack Obama still would have won in November - though it would have much closer and more accurately represented the voting wishes of the American populous. Plus every voter in every state would have their vote actually matter. So proportional voting isn't about changing election results, it's about registering and making every one's vote count. That's usually the Democrat's rally cry. But not in this case because it doesn't work to their advantage. I could make the argument that NOT to enact proportional distribution of electoral votes is racist. (There's that word) Think about it. Philadelphia has a large black voting population. Pittsburgh is overly represented in a similar way. Blacks vote consistently and overwhelmingly Democratic. Because of a large population in those two cities, as they go - Pennsylvania goes. Since Republicans do quite well in the state outside of those two regions, white votes go unrecognized and therefore - unrewarded. Philly and Pittsburgh essential decide who gets all 20 electoral votes. Hardly seems fair, does it? Proportional votes would solve this problem.
The status quo in politics usually wins. So I'm not optimistic these changes are on the verge of happening. Still, the GOP currently holds the Governor and state assembly's in the Keystone state. So if it were ever to happen, now would be a good time. And if the Dems have taught us anything, it's that once you obtain political advantage - use it!
Is it finally time to ban cars?
An adult or child is far more likely to be injured or lose their life in a car accident than by a firearm. That's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact. So if the fact that a child is more likely to drown in a bucket in their own home, than injured by a gun. 30 children a year die this way. What are we to do? Limit the width and liquid capacity of buckets? Almost 1000 kids a year will drown in various ways. Most within their own home. Tragic? Of course. But we already have a ton of federal, state and municipal laws enacted to keep children and adults safe from drowning. Laws don't save lives. Only common sense and personal responsibility can do that.
Some are willing to accept the fact that accidents do happen. And that no matter how hard we try, innocents will die in car accidents, boating accidents, drownings, falls and various other ways. I'm one of those people. We can and must try to limit such deaths. But we must also admit there is a limit as to how much success we'll have. Common sense and acts of God cannot be legislated. Dissolving or altering the Constitution cannot wipe away human error or change the human heart. We have to live in the real world not a theoretical one. The theoretical world would tell us that banning all firearms would make us safe from gun violence. But reality would suggest that banning or making certain activities illegal don't work. Prohibition failed miserably. Even today, though cocaine, marijuana, heroin and prostitution are all illegal - all of them can be had within and 20 minutes of where you live, no matter where you live. Laws? Those who engage in such activities don't give a damn about laws. You think they're going to follow gun laws?
We live in a dangerous world. Acts of insane violence cannot be stopped by well meaning, though ineffective laws anymore than speed limits or stop signs reduce car accident deaths. Human nature and human error will interfere with the best of our intentions. Just as selfish drivers will blow through stop signs, exceed speed limit or tailgate at high speeds - so will those bent on destruction use a firearm to inflict carnage. It is not popular to use these analogies, but it is correct to do so. And because I know there are those who will use such weapons in their efforts of destruction, I choose to remain armed. For the same reason I purchase car insurance hoping that I never have to use it, I buy guns. Disarming or limiting my capacity to defend myself does not keep you safer. But going after those who would be dangerous to both you and I, would. That is where our efforts must be focused. Happy motoring.
The Constitution: Is it outdated for the 21st century?
Liberal "nut wank" Bill Mahr notwithstanding, some have questioned the relevance of the U.S. Constitution in modern times. After all, it was written by men (and only men) at a time when the populous was mostly uneducated and unsophisticated about matters of government and individual rights. (some things haven't changed much). While the Declaration Of Independence is the flowery manifesto of American independence, the Constitution is the user guide how to make the American experiment work. Written at a time when the leading technology was bees waxed candles, the nuts and bolts workings of the constitution are timeless. Sadly, I've even heard a few conservatives question the relevancy of the constitution these days - to the point of suggesting it may be time for a new U.S. Constitution to reflect the changing times. They are wrong.
We need not attempt to create it's successor. The constitution is the blueprint for national and individual success. But the constitution is not a "living document" as some would have you believe. It is stone. It cannot be re-interpreted for the convenience of the moment or partisan political whims. For instance, the founders knew the failings of human nature. That's why the 1st and 2nd amendments are what they are. Freedom of speech (and religion) along with the right of free men to bear arms, are the two most important amendments. They knew that a free society, a Representative Republic as we are, would require individual freedoms to protect its longevity. And they feared that a tyrannical government, even a freely elected one, could run roughshod over the people. The people would need the tools to make certain that didn't happen. And if it did, the people would have the means to throw off the shackles that enslaved them. Those two amendment guarantee and make certain that ability lies with the people.
The problem isn't with the Constitution. It's with those who find the Constitution too restraining. Well, it's supposed to be restraining. While it allows for new amendments when required, it has rock solid purpose and clearly definable law. Amendments are not to be added or changed willy-nilly. That's why it requires the government to run the gauntlet of procedures in order to change or add an amendment. The Constitution is specifically designed to restrain government, not promote it's expansion. It exists to limit the power, size and scope of the federal government. Hence, the 10th amendment which reserves significant power to the states - which the federal government has usurped in the last 100 plus years. Take some time to read the 10th amendment, then tell me if you think the federal government has overstepped it's intent. Uh huh.
Unlike other country's constitutions, ours doesn't approach the rights of the people as being granted by the government. The founders recognized that any right that can be granted by the government, can be taken by that same government. They understood that rights granted by God, cannot be taken by man. Hence the phase unalienable rights. The approach was different from anything prior. The constitution also lays out the format for electing officials, which branch of government has what powers and the mechanisms for a functioning republic. It is often clumsy but it does work. And it would work much better if certain people would let it alone. The current President uses Executive Orders as a way to bypass congress which is clearly the legislative branch of government. The President's ability to use Executive Orders and actions were never intended to circumvent congress and create defacto law. Sadly, he's not the first Chief Executive to do this.
We have been given a great gift. That gift must be protected from those who would use it for partisan purposes. And to do that properly, it must be understood. I'm not a constitutional scholar. But you don't have to be one to appreciate the simplicity and grandeur of our constitution. It's really quite a simple read. The founders meant what the said and said what they meant. It's written in ink and paid for in blood. And designed for a free people who will cherish and protect it. It will endure long after you and I are gone just as it was intended. Written for the ages, it requires no rewrite. It just needs to be followed.
7 is the new 30. At least where guns in N.Y. are concerned in New York
My semi-auto Ruger 9mm handgun holds 15 rounds in it's magazine. If I wanted to, I could fire those 15 rounds, drop the magazine, insert another and rip off another 15 rounds in about 2 seconds longer than a full 30 round magazine could. This legislation was intended to make citizens feel safer. Well, do you? Of course not, because its all window dressing. A law abiding citizen with a 30 round magazine is a threat to no one - except someone intent on harming him. However, a criminal with a 5 round magazine is a threat to all of us. Then again, so is a criminal with a knife, harpoon, bowling pin, coffee grinder or spatula. There is no safe number of rounds in a magazine in the hands of a demented person, gangbanger or punkass criminal. Your elected officials would have you think otherwise.
Along with some states, the Obama regime will attempt to force more gun laws in an attempt to reduce violent gun deaths. Unfortunately, the overwhelming amount of these new regulations will be aimed at the law abiding gun owner - not those who are actually committing these deaths. Chicago had over 500 gun related deaths in 2012. How many do you think were committed with legally owned firearms? Very, very few because gun laws in the windy city are among the strictest in the nation. Its the criminal element that is causing these deaths. And so-called high capacity "assault weapons" account for less than half of 1% of ALL gun related deaths. Yet you would be led to believe its astronomical. Why are they so focused on these weapons? Facts are stubborn things, seldom reflecting the viewpoint of the anti-gun lobby. But they are facts non-the-less.
Some don't understand why a large capacity magazine is necessary. For me, the argument is simple. If 30 round mags are made illegal, gun deaths wont go down because as stated prior, criminals don't obey laws. Limiting people to 7 round mags wont help either for the exact same reason. Eventually some well meaning liberal politicians will suggest that only 5 round magazines should be legal - with the same results. When these efforts fail - and they will, what will they want next? I shudder to think. And that's why the line must be drawn here.
Its been estimated that criminal activity is thwarted anywhere from 1 to 2 million times a year in the U.S. just by an armed citizen presenting a firearm in their defense. Liberals will say that number is grossly exaggerated. Fine. Then even if we use the "official" number that law enforcement uses, we're still approaching 500,000. (The discrepancy is that often people don't "report" their experiences to law enforcement) You may wish to remain unarmed and that's fine with me. But I will not surrender my constitutional rights - none of them and especially the 2nd amendment. It is the one that assure the others will survive. Nor will I rely upon the reaction time of the police to come to my aid should I need them. The amount of time it takes the Police to respond to a 911 call is 14 minutes. My bullet travels at 1200 feet per second. When time is of the essence, which one would you want to rely upon?
Senator Obama voted against the 2006 debt ceiling. Cites "failed leadership"
Now Obama uses fear (yes, again) to get what he wants. And what does he want? Spending. More spending. He's as predictable as he is consistent. At today's press conference he tells America that if the debt limit isn't raised, seniors may not get their Social Security checks and veterans may not have access to the care they deserve. At no time did he say that he and members of congress wouldn't get paid. (Gotta' have priorities) The GOP offers to raise the debt limit but they want some spending cuts. Barry says "oh noooooooo". Can't reduce spending now. Millions of non-tax paying Americans are depending on him spending money we don't have. We have a $16.3 trillion national debt. A $1.1 trillion budget deficit and he says we can't cut a dime. Nope!
In government's infinite wisdom, departmental spending is automatically raised 5% each year. Do you get a mandatory 5% raise every year? The GOP wanted to reduce the mandatory increases. The big "O" said NO. The federal government just can't do without that additional yearly increase. Nope! They just can't! Not that they tried, mind you. Obama will demonize anyone who wants to reduce spending and who else would that be besides those dastardly Republicans. I still can't believe more than half of America voted to re-elect this train wreck. But from what I've heard, there's a coronation, err, uh inauguration next week. And you're paying for some of that too. Hey, it's only money.
Liberal hypocrisy finds a home in suburban New York.
This was an effort to embarrass and expose people who have committed no crime other than legally exercise a specific constitutional right - which apparently annoys these two suburban newspapers. But these papers actually put every non-gun owner in Putnam and Westchester counties at risk. Now the criminal element knows exactly which homes and families are not defended. Should any of these non-gun homes be robbed or homeowners attacked, I hope the homeowners attempt to sue the newspapers for putting them at risk. As for me, I wouldn't mind at all if my local newspapers printed my name as a gun owner. In fact, they could print that I also have a concealed carry weapon permit. That way the vermin out there would know I'm not an easy mark. I might be armed today. Or perhaps I'm not. They've got a 50-50 chance against me. And should they attempt entry into my home, their ratio at success drops considerably.
These newspapers would find it insulting if an organization of an opposing viewpoint were to list the names and addresses of citizens whose activities they opposed. But in a moment of ultimate hypocrisy, the newspapers have employed armed guards to protect them since the names were listed. Even though no actual threats were made. Liberal hypocrisies. They're everywhere. You don't even have to look hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)