Thursday, April 30, 2009
From the blog of Wayne LaPierre:
Pelosi- "We Want Them Registered."
The Obama administration wishes it hadn't happened. Most of the media has swept it under the rug. But they can't deny it any longer and there's no doubt about it ...
They're coming after every law-abiding gun owner in America- and they want your name and personal information in a federal database. That's right- national registration of all firearms.
And the speaker of the House- Nancy Pelosi- fully admitted her gun registration plan, in an admission wrapped around outright lies about the Second Amendment and our freedom.
On ABC's "Good Morning America," when pressed about her goals for gun legislation, Pelosi said the following:
"... the Supreme Court has ruled in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered ... and we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions that people have about what gun safety means.”
Pelosi's idea of "gun safety" is every gun ban, ammunition ban and licensing scheme that has come across her desk. She's spent an entire congressional career voting to deny the rights of lawful gun owners.
And now, she's laid out her congressional agenda- coming soon- "We want them registered."
They can't deny it. And they can't deny the determination and might of America's lawful gun owners, who don't want their names in some national government database, just waiting to be abused by gun-hating bureaucrats.
So bring it on, Nancy. We're ready.
The irony here, is that all legally purchased guns are already "registered", both with the individual State, and the Fed, yet Pelosi, ignorant about firearms as are most of her ilk, apparently does not know this. Millions of people saw this demonstrated in the movie "Red Dawn", where the enemy commander orders his troops to go to the local "sporting goods store" to locate the forms kept on file to purchase firearms as required by the Fed the "ATF Form 4473" which has the name, address, etc of the person who bought the firearm. The enemy troops now know where to go and who has guns so they can be confiscated and the owners, as they say, "dealt with". Though a fictional film, the implications of "registration" are clear from this example. Registration equals, at "best" confiscation, at "worst": certain death for the owner, when "they" come after the listed person. For more historical info/proof on this subject, click on the link at the base of this page for "jews for the preservaton of firearms ownership"...
Why is this relevant here? The mass-murderer's weapon of choice was not a semi-automatic so-called "assault weapon", or a firearm of any kind, yet the killer managed to slaughter the unarmed innocents right under the nose of the Police, in broad daylight, with his weapon of choice. Check out the video report at Sky News UK at this link (select, copy & paste into your browser if the link does not activate):
Meanwhile, in another part of the country (Rotterdam), a hothead with a firearm (pistol) only managed to kill one unarmed innocent, and there were no armed Police and/or citizens on scene to stop him. The murderer was eventually taken down not by the Police, but by unarmed civilians (what we call a "Militia" in the USA)...
Deadly Gun Rampage At Talent Contest Cafe
A gunman has opened fire in a busy cafe in Holland, killing one person and injuring three others, police have said.
The man attacked customers in the premises and then ran outside where he shot at bystanders on the street.
A police spokesman said people outside the cafe wrestled the gunman to the ground and held him until officers arrived.
The motive for the shooting, which happened in the early hours in Rotterdam, is not yet known.
But it may have begun with an argument in the cafe, where a talent contest was taking place.
One person was wounded inside the premises and three people were hit on the street, one fatally, the police spokesman said.
Officers said the man was a 46-year-old resident of the city but gave no further details.
2 items to consider--Holland's strict "gun control laws" didn't keep this hothead from packing (but disarmed everyone else at the scene) and the other attack begs the question of which weapon proved the deadliest?. One thing we know for certain: no demonized "evil semi-automatic assault weapons" were involved in either case, and in Holland, you can own rifles that are banned in California...So...Go fig'...
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Although the "reporter" seems sometimes confused between semi and full automatics (and other blunders), this report from michigan is a state-of-the art example of media bias...and/or simple incompetence...on the subject. Despite its good points, this is still something we can't afford...
Assault weapon ban talk increases guns sales
By Dan Cherry
ADRIAN TWP., Mich. -
John Sprague, the store manager at Johnson’s Sporting Goods in Adrian Township, gestures to half-empty shelves of ammunition behind the counter.
He said a campaign pledge by President Barack Obama to reinstate a weapons ban led to a rush on sporting goods stores to buy guns and ammunition, a buying trend that continues.
“Since before the election, when there was a good chance of (Obama) becoming president, sales went way up,” Sprague said Thursday. “I can’t keep most ammunition in stock.”
Because of demand, Sprague said, Johnson’s is temporarily limiting ammunition sales to one box of per customer.
Obama had pledged during his campaign to seek renewal of an assault weapons ban but has bowed to the reality that such a move would be unpopular in politically key U.S. states and among Republicans as well as some conservative Democrats.
Confronting a Mexican drug war that is “sowing chaos in our communities,” Obama signaled on April 16 that he will not seek renewal of the weapons ban, but instead will step up enforcement of laws banning the transfer of such guns across the border.
“He (President Obama) appears to be backing down, but sales are brisk,” Sprague said.
An Adrian Wal-Mart associate, who spoke Friday on the condition of anonymity, said the sporting goods department has difficulty keeping the 550-round boxes of .22-caliber ammunition in stock due to brisk sales. The smaller boxes of rounds, however, are more readily available.
“People want the large boxes,” she said.
A representative in the Adrian Meijer sporting goods department, who also declined to be identified, said he hasn’t seen a significant increase in ammunition sales since the election, and there is no rationing in effect at the store.
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the sale of ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds and a variety of rifles such as semi-automatic versions of AK-47s and AR-15s. Semi-automatic rifles fire a bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They differ from automatic rifles, which fire continuously as long as the trigger is pulled.(i.e.:"machineguns"-S9) Automatic rifles are illegal without a federal permit, and must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The ban expired in 2004 during President George W. Bush’s administration, and a 10-year extension proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was voted down.
The difference between what defined assault from otherwise legal weapons, Sprague said, was optional accessories. Those included bayonet mounts, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and gun flash suppressors. Except for those additions, Sprague added, there was no mechanical difference between those rifles being legal or illegal during the ban.
Sometimes all it takes to make an illegal weapon legal, such as a 9 mm LAR-15, is to have two or more of those options removed from the instrument.
Sheriff Jack Welsh said problems with assault weapons in Lenawee County haven’t been an issue, before, during or after the ban.
“I saw no concrete evidence that the ban ever significantly reduced violent crimes,” he said. “Legitimate gun owners register their weapons. Unfortunately, whether there is a ban or not, some individuals will find ways to get weapons that are illegal.”
Welsh added he is against any fully automatic weapons being possessed or sold, and is in favor of background checks for any weapons purchased. He added that, if the Obama administration attempts to reinstate an assault weapons ban, he will pay close attention to the issue.
Sprague said FBI crime statistics show most crimes aren’t committed with assault weapons.
“Besides, most criminals cannot afford these types of guns,” Sprague added, pointing to rifles with price tags of more than $1,000.
Cambridge Township Police Chief Larry Wibbeler said he also never saw any increase or decrease in violent crime during or after the ban, adding the criminals who are after the assault rifles will usually locate them through illegal purchase or theft.
“If they (the criminals) want them, they’ll find a way to get them,” he said.
Wibbeler said very few fully automatic assault weapons have ever been confiscated in Cambridge Township.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
(See earlier post "Myth of 90% Exposed)
ATF sends 100 agents to Houston to help stop flow of guns to Mexican cartels
HOUSTON — Federal officials say 100 agents, analysts and other personnel have arrived in Houston in an effort to stop the flow of firearms from the United States to drug cartels in Mexico.
Kenneth Melson, the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said Tuesday the agents and other support staff will spend the next four months in the bureau's Houston field division. They'll be developing cases against people and groups trafficking firearms to Mexico.
Melson says 90 percent of the guns that Mexican authorities have seized from cartels and other criminals and given to U.S. officials to trace have come from the United States.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why a top ATF Supervisor went on the record to promote this already exposed blatant lie. It's clear who his political masters are and who he seeks to appease by repeating this falsehood (a lie previously even debunked by other federal agencies, prior Obama's Mexican trip!). Publicity stunts and cooperation by willing media running dogs promoting mind-control on the US public seldom gets more obvious than this...
Will Congress Take Your Guns?
by Ashley Alber
Despite the clear language in the Second Amendment -- and last year’s Supreme Court decision that said it preserved an individual’s right to keep and bear arms -- gun rights still are a prime target for liberal legislators. Just last week, Attorney General Holder announced that the Obama administration would seek the return of the so-called “assault weapons” ban.
On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives such as Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) see the Second Amendment as non-negotiable based on this implicit right spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
“This amendment shouldn’t even be an issue, but the mainstream media is eager to distort the truth to the American people,” LaPierre said. “Unfortunately for many Americans who are unaware, the media perpetuates lies in order to help get these bans enacted.”
As mainstream media, particularly CNN, flashes images of firearms shooting into the camera and flickers the slogans “weapons of war” and “guns like our soldiers use on the battlefield,” many Americans are terrified by the thought of machine guns being a commonplace among citizens. LaPierre introduced the panel “Will Congress Take Your Guns?” before a packed audience at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with brief clips from liberals and mainstream media reporting the fallacies associated with the Second Amendment that infiltrate into millions of homes across the country.
The first of these fallacies, LaPierre explains, is that public safety must be maintained by eliminating firearm purchases by citizens, and second, that Mexican drug cartels would not have as many weapons if gun bans were enforced for Americans. However, in the midst of one of the hardest economic times, gun sales are the highest on record said LaPierre.
Rep. Connie Mack of Florida has never supported gun bans and says he will continue this record each time a bill comes before Congress attempting to restrict gun ownership by American citizens.
“Only the liberals in Washington, D.C. can read the Second Amendment and not understand exactly what it reads is what it means,” Mack said.
Mack’s advocacy for limited federal government over the states and citizens was elicited in his statement that in his book and his office, government is not the answer to every problem. The core principle driving the Second Amendment is freedom and security which must ride together as a fundamental American right he said.
Former Virginia governor and senator George Allen, added facts that prove the vast majority of crimes do not result from private gun ownership.
“Look at Washington, D.C., we can’t have guns in this town and we can hardly call this place safe,” Allen said. “It comes down to being harsher on criminals because criminals don’t obey gun bans, so punishing the good guy is not the answer.”
Allen says that it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to uphold the responsibilities rooted in the goals of the U.N. which is working toward an international gun ban, or the authorities in Mexico.
Moderator for the panel, Chuck Cunningham of the NRA reminded the audience that fundamental rights such as the right to bear arms will always be under fire for restriction and the importance for conservatives to activate their voice by joining the NRA in the fight to help preserve this amendment.
“The guys with guns make the rules and I don’t care if that’s not politically correct,” LaPierre said.
Obama not likely to pull weapon-ban trigger
By STEWART M. POWELL and JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
WASHINGTON — The last time a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress banned civilian sales of some types of military-style assault weapons, it took American voters barely seven weeks to hand Republicans control of Capitol Hill for the first time in 40 years.
One of the prominent casualties of that backlash was the sponsor in the House — Rep. Jack Brooks, D-Texas, who lost his seat in Congress in 1994 after 42 years of service.
That lesson wasn’t lost on President Obama when he faced pressure from Mexican President Felipe Calderon to revive the defunct weapons’ ban to help combat drug cartel violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In Mexico, Obama insisted he had “not backed off” his campaign promise to make the expired ban permanent. But he bowed to political reality, nonetheless.
“None of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy,” Obama said. “And so, what we’ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws.”
Hints that Obama harbored ambitions to resurrect the restriction alarmed some Texas Republicans and reassured some Texas Democrats.
Fresh restrictions on the constitutional right to bear arms were “not the solution to the problems occurring in Mexico,” declared Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
“It is not our responsibility to keep guns out of Mexico — and reviving the ban will not affect the way Mexico protects its border,” said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, a former criminal court judge.
Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, said a ban would “not reduce crime on our borders.”
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the administration may be using border violence to “push its gun control agenda.”
The issue remains ending bloodshed by lawless drug cartels and “not a divisive return to policies that infringe upon the American people’s Second Amendment rights,“ emphasized Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas.
Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, said he supported the right to bear arms, but added that assault weapons “can and should be subjected to regulation and prohibition.”
Whatever the opinion, politicians and experts agreed Obama had no choice but to resist Mexican officials’ entreaties. He couldn’t win a battle in Congress to resurrect the ban.
“We’ve reached a point where there aren’t many people who will stick their political necks out to vote for sensible gun control,” says Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the second ranking Democrat in the Senate leadership.("Sensible" my buttcheeks!-S9)
Earlier this year, the Democratic-led Senate already dealt a body blow to gun control movement, when 22 Senate Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., joined 40 Republicans to shelve firearms restrictions in the nation’s capital.
Merely hinting at renewal provoked 65 House Democrats, many from swing districts, to warn the Obama administration that they would “actively oppose” any revival.
Democratic Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus of Montana — a bellwether western state carried by Obama — warned they would “strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.”
Added to that, Obama risked squandering political capital and distracting attention from pressing domestic issues such as economic revival, overhauling the financial system and health care reform.
Not even prominent Democrats’ calls for resurrecting the ban in the wake of the slayings of four police officers in Oakland, Calif., and three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pa., could budge the new president.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Senate author of the 1994 assault weapons ban, said on CBS “60 Minutes” on April 12 that she has no intention of reintroducing the assault weapons ban — for now.
Eventually, Feinstein said, “I’ll pick the time and the place, no question about it.”
Latest nationwide polls show “little evidence that gun control is at the moment a high priority for Americans,” says the Gallup Poll’s “Pulse of Democracy.”
Barely 49 percent of those surveyed said they wanted tighter laws governing firearms sales — the lowest percentage since 1990.
Americans remain evenly divided on whether to make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess assault rifles.
“There’s a realization on Capitol Hill that the 1994 law was ineffective,” says Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “The logical question is why should we resurrect a law that was proven to be ineffective?”(What about unconstitutional!?-S9)
Even gun control advocates are focusing on achieving other changes rather than reviving the ban. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence wants background checks required on all gun sales including those at gun shows.
“The laws on the books aren’t getting the job done,” says Paul Helmke, the president.
Obama’s stance in Mexico represented a U-turn.
He backed the ban during his presidential campaign. His transition team listed “making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent” a goal of the incoming administration.
“I believe we need to renew — not roll back — this common sense gun law,” Obama told the Chicago Tribune during his Senate campaign in 2004 when the assault weapons ban was expiring.
Has Obama reneged?
”He supports it,“ White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. “The president is also, though, focused on taking actions to stem the flow of guns moving south that go across the border (and) making progress on something that we are likely to see progress on.”
The narrow ban ("Narrow"? What a downplay that term is! That ban was sweeping and arbitrary!-S9) that was adopted in 1994 and expired in 2004 barred the sale of 19 military-style assault weapons, “copy-cat” models and some high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Jimmy Carter Wants to Ban Just the Guns That Kill People
Jacob Sullum |
In a New York Times op-ed piece, former President Jimmy Carter presents revival of the federal "assault weapon" ban, which President Obama supports, as a no-brainer, since the guns that were covered by the expired 1994 law are "designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend." Evidently, if you aim one of these firearms at a home intruder, a prairie dog, or a paper target, instead of firing a bullet it harmlessly unfurls a little flag that says "Bang!" Having polled himself and his hunting buddies, Carter reports that "none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives." According to Carter, then, everyone who owns one of these guns is an aspiring cop killer, homicidal maniac, or both.
Carter never explains what makes these weapons uniquely suited to murdering policemen and random passers-by yet completely inappropriate for any other purpose. On the face of it, the criteria that distinguish "assault weapons" from legitimate, non-cop-killing, non-student-slaughtering guns—which include "military-style" features such as bayonet mounts, folding stocks, and flash suppressors—do not have much to do with criminal functionality. But they must, because Carter says "the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people" (i.e., "assault weapons") include the deaths of "more than 30,000 people" in 2006. In other words, "assault weapons" account for every gun-related death, with none left over for models that don't fall into this arbitrary category. No wonder Carter is so eager to ban them.
Studies of "assault weapon" use prior to the 1994 ban paint a different picture. In these studies, according to a 2004 Justice Department report (PDF), "AWs typically accounted for up to 8% of guns used in crime, depending on the specific AW definition and data source used." Even the shooting rampages for which Carter claims "assault weapons" are especially designed typically involve guns that were not covered by the federal ban. Here is a catalog (PDF), compiled by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, of "Mass Gun Violence in the United States Since 1997." Given that the group is an unrelenting booster of bans on "assault weapons," it presumably would not have missed an opportunity to associate them with mass murder. Yet firearms covered by the federal ban are mentioned in connection with only a small minority of the crimes on the list—nine out of 138, or less than 7 percent, on the first 10 pages. And as I mentioned in a column last month, both the deadliest and the second deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history were accomplished with ordinary handguns.
Ted Nugent said he is going to write a counter Op-Ed to Carter's blatant bull-scat also....The lies and character assassination semi-auto gun owners have to put up with is horrific, mean-spirited, and cowardly to boot. It brings to mind the old Ted Kennedy bumper sticker about his "car has killed more people than any of my guns"...
What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?
By JIMMY CARTER
Published: April 26, 2009
THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.
When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.
I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.
But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.
An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.
A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.
Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.
Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.
What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.
Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.
The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend. -- Jimmy Carter
Monday, April 27, 2009
Daniel Lays out "The Plan" for the War on Semi-Autos here, so don't forget he told you so...Believe it!!!
Biding their time on gun control
By Daniel White
When President Obama was running for office, he consistently paid lip service to the second amendment while making comments about certain firearms that belong "on a battlefield, not on the streets of Chicago" and that "our playgrounds have become battlegrounds." He has consistently stated his support for certain types of gun control, even on the White House website.
Yet, gun control supporters have been frustrated thus far by the lack of a push for the kinds of legislation they want (repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, reinstating the "Assault Weapons" ban, closing the mythical "gun show loophole," etc.
Several top ranking members of his administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have made statements supporting new gun control measures, only to back off on them after the fact. So far, only what looks to be trial runs have been made, testing for weaknesses in the gun rights movement's armor.
Anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein(D-Calif.), recently leaked their plans on CBS program "60 Minutes" when she stated, "I'll pick the time and place. No question about it."
So, what are they all waiting for? 2010.
The last time the Democrats had full control over the United States legislature, they pushed stringent gun control measures through, all of them gleefully signed by then President Bill Clinton. The straw that broke the camel's back was the flawed and failed federal "Assault Weapons" ban, a do-nothing feel-good piece of legislation that banned certain rifles for nothing more than what they looked like. The American public had enough, and the legislature was handed to the Republican party in the next election. Bill Clinton directly blamed the loss on the AWB.
Now, having learned from their mistakes, the Democrats that are back in power are planning carefully. On November 2, 2010, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs. The Democrats will not allow their opposition to the will of the People to again cost them control, so will lay low until after that election. Once their power is assured, they will be free to strike at gun rights and have the next two years to run damage control and try to minimize the issue before the 2012 presidential race.
Avoiding consequences for taking the People's rights isn't easy, but they have a plan.
Mexico, Don't Blame Us
by Ted Nugent
Border security and gun control? No problem here. Got both. In fact, I have virtually perfected both culture war issues at Ground Nuge to the point of untouchable. You see, even though I am just a guitar player, these are the tip-o-the-spear culture war lies I have railed against for more than forty years. I control my borders, and I control my guns. Wild, huh?
Take, for example, the fact that the Nugent property has never been invaded, for we, like all life loving, law abiding Americans we know, have sent out a loud and clear message that even mentally deficient felon wannabes understand without pushing "1" for English: Invade my home, and I will kill you. Case closed. No invasions and no one killed. Perfect.
Reminds me of when Mayor Daley decreed to the National Guard and law enforcement "shoot to kill" all looters caught out after curfew during the 1968 Chicago riots. No one shot and no one killed and no one dared be on the streets of the Windy City, because everyone knew old Dick meant it. Well, this guy means it too. Good, effective, logical win-win policy. Maybe our government should give it a whack.
Now if I can do it, why can’t Fedzilla? I figured it out: because they don’t want to point their guns in the right direction. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano -- she who kept Arizona’s border’s open to illegal immigrants and all the mayhem they can bring -- thinks it’s all our fault. She -- and Hillary, of course -- buy into that absurd report that 90% of the guns involved in Mexican drug war killings come from America.
How can they be so dumb to fall for that? Well, they are liberals.
It matches nicely with the insane message that our unaccountable Fedzilla beast has been sending loud and clear to law breakers and America-haters for at least 30 years: Come one, come all to the good ol’ USA, invade us at will and we will reward you handsomely with all the healthcare, welfare and hand-held lessons in recidivism that an out-of-touch, anti-American government could possibly provide you with.
And the icing on the invader cake is that if any of our heroes of law enforcement, dedicated and sworn to defend our sacred U.S. Constitution and enforce our laws while, dare interfere with your invasion, we will give you a free get out of jail card while we actually imprison our own warriors if they shoot you in the butt.
Bring drugs, destroy America, bloodsuck us dry while maintaining allegiance to the corrupt hellhole of a tyranny you so desperately take your life into your own hands to escape, and you will be treated better than many Americans will be.
The producers of Planet of the Apes would reject a script like the one unfolding before our very eyes because it's too stupid to believe. Too stupid, that is, for everybody but cult of denial leftists hell-bent on collaborating with the invaders to assist in the destruction of America from within. Liberalism is cannibalism.
Liberals are immune to facts. That’s why Hillary Clinton -- when she’s not tossing ash trays at Bill -- spouts the absurd lies that estimate over 90% of Mexican drug cartel guns come from the U.S., including the weapon of choice down there, the machine gun.
Lighten up, Hill baby. And write this down: the irrefutable fact of the matter is that the actual number of machine guns from the U.S. used by Mexican or any other criminals anywhere is zero. As in none, zilch, nada, nuthin, nary a one. You can’t just buy one in any U.S. gun store, and to get one at all requires a mountain of Fedzilla paperwork that few Americans are willing to put up with.
And according to ATF, DEA, FBI and every other boot on the ground on the border wars, at the very most "a possible 17% of semi-automatic rifles and standard handguns" can be traced back to a U.S. origin.
I’ll tell you where 90% of the gangbangers firepower comes from. All that artillery is supplied by the demonically corrupt Mexican government, their own “law enforcement” gangs and from places like China, Venezuela and an unstoppable pipeline of uncontrolled gunrunners from countries where guns are virtually banned from private citizens.
Mexican residents are not allowed to keep and bear arms, so based on law, Mexico should be a gun-free zone. Guess how that worked out for them? About as well as it has in Afghanistan.
And remember, even Amnesty International will tell you that at any given time, more than 2000 Americans are incarcerated in Mexican prisons and jails without any formal charges brought. Including simple American tourists who committed the horrible "alleged" crime of being in possession of a spent .22 shell. No guns, no loaded ammo, just a tiny piece of used brass "allegedly" found in their vehicle. And these innocent Americans will sit in those cages until the out of control Mexican Federalis extort every dime from their families.
But like all other gun-free zones, this is the guaranteed recipe for the most innocent lives being gunned down. Forced unarmed helplessness is such a peace and love kind of thing.
It is sad and pathetic that there are still so many Americans complicit in the life destroying death orgy of drug running by maintaining a huge criminal consumer base to keep the drug terrorists in business. But like the terrorists' allies in gun running, they represent an evil lunatic fringe that must never dictate policy forcing good Americans into unarmed helplessness.
Unarmed, helpless Americans are exactly what criminals and liberals dream of, and as the invasion of America throttles on, we the people must be dedicated to stopping any attempt of the Obama administration to make it easier for invaders to breech our borders, or the disarmament of U.S. citizens with more counterproductive gun control. Don't tread on me, and I won't Ted on you. Send the ultimate message of freedom: join the NRA today.
The center-fire rifle most commonly used for marksmanship training and competition in the United States is the AR-15, arbitrarily defined as an "assault weapon" under the former Clinton Gun Ban and currently under some states' laws.
This is where the enemy has used their talking points and media running dogs to define the argument. They took the term "assault" from "assault rifle" (a rifle with full-auto capability i.e.: a "machinegun"), and combined it with the generic term "weapons" (in order to take as many firearms as possible into the "banned" tent) and magically created a mythical media creation, the "assault weapon": A perfect foil to dupe the masses into fear of any "milclone" firearm and/or any firearm displaying modern features.("AK"is now enthroned as a "fear word", something the creator of this firearm, Hero of the Soviet Union Kalashnikov has stated he violently resents, being his name is on it, and he designed it to defeat the Nazis:a worthwhile endeavor...and note this includes simple pistols and shotguns that have what the gun-ignorant ban-fans see as "evil" features). Using the most oppressive semi-auto ban law in the nation, California, as an example, such items as "pistol grips" (must be banned because it "helps the user aim and control the firearm better" was their ignorant & faulty excuse) or "bayonet lugs"(must be banned because criminals will mount bayonet charges against their foes when they run out of ammo/;-) and magazine round limits (usually 10 rounds) from fixed rather than detachable mags. These obviously ignorant and noxious measures are clearly an impotent attempt to put a technology Genie back in a bottle (approximately around the late 1700's) that can only be realized by THREATENING YOU WITH A FELONY RECORD AND PRISON to be effective (Can I get an "Amen" for what is a De Facto blatant misuse of government police power here?...There is no logical reason for anyone to be going to Prison for a piece of plastic on a firearm, this is pure idiocy on it's face. Could you kill someone with a plastic pistol grip detached from a firearm?. Only if you melted it down and turned it into a prison ready shank, maybe). No, they have lied about Semi's,institutionalized their talking points regarding Semi's, and resurrected these zombies to again brainwash & mind control the public with this library of lies. Watch the debate from "Deface The Nation" with Wayne LaPierre Vs. the moderator & Rendell for a perfect example of this in action. Rendell is such a lying,grandstanding blowhard, he refutes LaPierre's facts by simply saying "that is so untrue" (without any factual arguments to support the statement) and gets a total pass on this by the so-called "moderator", while LaPierre is "ganged up" on to be put on the defense throughout this one-sided "debate". La Pierre valiantly argues his points with logic, but is overwhelmed by emotional rhetoric & outright lies from the enemy. Only critical thinkers will be able to see the truth in this sparring match. Check out the video, and always,Brah's: Stay Ready-Stay Hard!...Video at:
(Select, copy & paste in your browser if this link does not activate)...
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Re: Reagan:Questioning an Anti-Gun Legacy
1968 was the federal GCA - Gun Control Act - that forced gun dealer
licensing, signing a register to buy ammo, and an end to ordering guns
by mail to be shipped to your house, since Lee Harvey Oswald's Cancarno
came from a mail-order place. I believe this act also made things like
20mm anti-tank rifles, which could also be mail-ordered by any kid with
the bucks, Class 3 weapons.
the 1986 law, Reagan's thing, was a 'gun owner protection' law that was
amended at the last minute to ban the new production of machine guns for
civilian sale. It essentially froze the pool of full-auto guns available
for you and I to obtain at the number in the ATF's records as of its'
effective date. It also banned anyone from making a new full-auto gun
design in their garage - so no future John Brownings need be born now.
Prior to this law, you could convert a semi-auto to full-auto or select
fire by obtaining a $200 tax stamp from the ATF.
It's unclear if Reagan knew of the amendment before he signed that bill,
or if he ever knew about it.
That's correct...It was slipped into the Volkmer-McClure Gun
Owners Bill of Rights as a last minute amendment by, IIRC,
then-Representative Chuckie Schumer. It was an obvious attempt to
poison the bill and get the NRA to kill it again for that year. Since
the bill accomplished so many other good things--allowing interstate
sale of long guns, requiring ATF to prove unlicensed sellers were
actually "in the business," and other reforms--NRA and other gun rights
organizations opted to ignore the ban and push for passage of the bill
anyway. When Reagan signed it into law, he wasn't signing a machine gun
ban. Rather he was signing a much-needed restoration of basic rights to
gun owners that just happened to have a machine gun ban included by the
antigun forces at the last moment.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sam from Alabama said:
Liberty is not just a statue
This guy sort of gets it, but he's wrong about machine guns. There is not a federal ban on private ownership of machine guns. There is an additional tax and background check. That's about it.
But under President Reagan a law was passed that stopped the production and importation of automatic weapons for sale to individuals. So while it's perfectly legal for you (in most states-a different issue) to own an automatic weapon, it's illegal for anyone to make or import one that you can buy.
That's just dumb. I think it's unconstitutional, too. As a collector, I'd like to have one or two. As a law-abiding citizen, it wouldn't be a threat to anyone's safety. As an American, I think my rights are being infringed.
Do I "need" one? There are few things in this world we "need" when you get right down to it. The correct question is, who decides what we can have?
There's a nice statue of Liberty in the harbor at New York City. There are those among us who think a statue is enough. I prefer the real thing.
Sam's post opened the door for something that has been bugging me for quite a while: The MYTH of Reagan as pro-RKBA hero. From my observations, and at the risk of "political incorrectness" for his unquestoning fans, I submit that Reagan, for all his good qualities, was no fan of the 2A...First, Reagan was a true action hero. As a young buck, he rescued a woman from an armed rapist/mugger he observed from an upper floor window, calling out to the criminal to leave her be or he would shoot him between the shoulder blades. Problem solved!. In later years, however, Ray-Guns just about pissed me off by...1) Publicly endorsing the "Brady Bill", and 2) Publicly stating the anti-gun talking point "why does anyone need an 'AK-47'" and endorsing a semi-auto ban (total anathema to me,an unforgivable mortal sin that in itself warrants urination on his grave IMVVHV!!). I've heard the arguments that this comment was inspired by him preferring Americans use the AR-15 Series over the Communist legacy Kalashnikov, and also the rumor he was influenced by Bill Ruger, who was pro-AW Ban of all import Milclones, De Facto leaving him with a monopoly with his "Mini-14" rifles and proprietary 30 Round Magazines (as product placed on the TV Show "The A-Team"). The bottom line here though, is that unequivocal Reagan worshipers draw my immediate suspicion as being either uninformed cultists (regarding his RKBA transgressions), or intentional RKBA incrementalists (similar to high level NRA types willing to compromise on RKBA because of those big check$ piling up in their swiss bank account$...You know who you are...Enforce "Existing Laws" my gluteals!, Rescind existing anti-gun laws, Dammit!!...Join GOA!). Reagan will forever look good in a historical context, but only in comparison to the spineless weaklings prior and post his Presidential terms (and I assure you he is doing at least 5000 RPM in his grave knowing that the current "One" with his leftist bent is sitting in the same chair he once occupied). No, Reagan ran from Lebannon after the USMC and French Paratroopers were sui-homicide bombed (and gave the order preventing the Marines from participating in a punitive expedition against the terrorists the French Paras were mounting to avenge their fallen comrades:These are things that true soldiers cannot forget. Don't ever talk smack against the French special forces, they are just as tough and in some cases even more hard-assed than the rest, and yes, I'm taking into account that the majority of the French Foreign Legion are not native born Gauls. The 2nd R.E.P. are maybe the baddest-assed Paras on the planet). Reagan was essentially a good man and a great President, but his record on RKBA sucks, stinks and blows all at the same time. Now, if you are offended by this position, please refute it with facts and logic, because all emotionalist responses will be laughingly and contemptibly ignored. *Snake*
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Plan to Stop Flow of Guns into Mexico Will ‘Respect’ 2nd Amendment Rights, DHS Official Says...
John Leech, the man who oversees U.S. efforts to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, said the government also plans to stop the flow of guns into Mexico – while respecting the Second Amendment. (Yeah, right, a "plan" based on a faulty premise [Majority of Guns flow south into Mexico] and therefore already illegitimate. The mere fact this infringement is proposed is already unconstitutional on it's face!)...
Leech, the acting director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement for the Department of Homeland Security, testified about the government’s 2009 strategy for the southwest border before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday.
“We’ve actually produced an arms chapter, and I think you will be very proud of what the United States of America has put in this document in terms of trying to get control of the arms problem,” Leech said of the new strategy report, which is scheduled to be released in the next few weeks.
Leech said the new strategy will “really address the [gun] issue with tremendous respect for the Second Amendment and the rights of every American citizen.” (Umm-Hmmm, great track record on that, eh?...Ask a California Gun owner, a State where semiauto confiscation by the Government has already happened in fact, not theory!...Stay skeptical!)...
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (and what part of "infringed" is unclear?)...
Leech could not, however, answer the question posed by the subcommittee chairman, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), as to whether the guns getting to Mexico were obtained legally or illegally.
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) is chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on State, Local and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, which heard testimony on Tuesday about efforts to fight drug trafficking and gun running by local, state and federal law enforcement. “I’m not an expert on that,” Leech said, adding that he would try to find the answer to the question and get back to the subcommittee. (so what the eff are you doing up there in the first place then?)...
Asked about reports that 90 percent of guns confiscated in Mexico came from the United States, Leech said he is not sure if those reports are accurate. (Duh!) Some media reports place the number at 17 percent, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has confirmed that it is not certain how many U.S. guns end up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
“Is it your impression – and I know you’re not an expert on this, or maybe you can tell me what you know or get back to us – is it your impression that most of these guns going into Mexico are from the United States?” asked Pryor. “Or is it your impression, maybe what Sen. [John] Ensign (R-Nev.) alluded to, it’s really only a portion of the guns?”
“Sir, I’m not an expert,” said Leech. “I’ve seen what appears to be valid arguments on both sides. I’ve seen arguments for the straight 90 percent. And I’ve seen arguments that the 90 percent represents only a small percentage (of confiscated guns).” (So pick one or the other, both cannot be true, Waffle-Boy!...But of course, not picking one was the whole point anyway)...
Leech cited 2007 statistics showing that of the approximately 15,000 guns seized by Mexican authorities in drug operations, only 6,000 were traceable to the United States. Many of the confiscated guns are not traceable.
Leech will be replaced when President Barack Obama appoints (and Congress approves) a new director of DHS's Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement. (i.e.: until a more compliant running dog can be found to fill the slot)...
Pryor was the sole subcommittee member present for the entire 90-minute hearing (i.e.:The only one doing his duty), with ranking member Ensign attending a portion of the hearing. Freshman Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) was present for several minutes.
The two other witnesses at the hearing were Frances Flener, Arkansas State drug czar, and Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, head of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
OK, so let's recap...One to 3 Politicos even bothered to show up, and a "Straw-man" from DHS was ordered to show up and put on a happy face to buy time until a more "politically reliable" (read:Agressive Gun-Grabbin' Obamunist/Feinstien Drone) can be put in place to push forward the anti semiauto gun-ban agenda so dear to the heart of the new "Antigun Axis of Evil"...This is, in effect, holding gun owners at arms length with a smile while chambering their strong leg to kick em' in the genitals(!)...Stay ready, Stay hard!!...
Feinstein Vows to Renew Gun Ban
(From the blog of Wayne LaPierre)
While the Obama administration wants to lull gun owners into complacency, it's only a matter of time before a massive campaign is launched to deny our firearms freedom.
That's straight from the mouth of one of the most aggressive gun-haters on Capitol Hill- United States Senator Diane Feinstein.
"I'll pick the time and the place, no question about that," Feinstein told CBS on "60 Minutes," when asked if she planned on mounting an effort to renew the Clinton Gun Ban on lawful semi-automatic firearms.
Feinstein made that comment after claiming- wrongly- that American gun shows were responsible for arming drug cartels and violent gangs with so-called "assault weapons."
But despite the facts that prove her claim wrong, the anti-gun senator from San Francisco is as determined as ever to bring back the old gun ban ... and she knows she'll have support from President Barack Obama.
When reporter Lesley Stahl pointed out that it seems the president has a full plate of critical issues to deal with right now, Feinstein agreed.
"I agree with you," Feinstein said, "I wouldn't bring it up now. I'll pick the time and place, no question about that."
But what Feinstein and Stahl and the rest of the anti-freedom crowd don't know is that American gun owners are not complacent. We're not easily duped into a false sense that our freedom is safe. We know it's just a matter of time, and we'll stay ready to defend our rights.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
(See this abomination for yourself!)...
Greta Van Susteren Interviews ATF About Mexican Gun Violence
By Opposing Views Editorial Staff
Fox News reporter Greta Van Susteren recently interviewed ATF agents about the surging violence in Mexico. The ATF is partially repsonsible for enforcing America's gun laws, and recently much of their work has been devoted to stopping the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico. According to the ATF spokesperson interviewed, while the military-grade machine guns used by Mexican drug cartels are being imported from Central America, "the predominate amount of weapons we see are being purchased here [the U.S.] and being traffic to Mexico." ("Big-Lie Bullsh*t"!)...
Later, Greta visited the firing range to learn more about the weapons being smuggled into Mexico and even fire them herself. Video is here:
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
ATF Strikes Back!: The Propaganda War Continues...
ATF "proves" Mex Cartel guns come from the USA, via a table display (with FN P90's, pistols, .50 Cal linked ammo, a Barrett, etc) & firing range video thanks to clueless "useful idiot" Van Sustren (Fox). "Bait & Switch" being the order of the day, with the ATF Agent emphasizing seized firearms claimed to be enroute to Mexico. Whenever Agent-Boy mentioned that weapons were coming from other sources, he minimized these comments, yet repeated over and over about the seizures ATF has made in the US, stating that the "majority" of Cartel guns are coming from here, basically bolstering the "90% Myth" pushed by the Obamunist/Clinton/Feinstien Axis of Evil (I'd love to know who these Agents got their instructions from to put on this well staged Dog & Pony show propaganda exercise). On the range segment, AK's, M-60 GPMG's, Barrett .50's & M-16's are shown being fired (some shooting through car doors and protective vests for best dramatic effect), using the same tactic as back in the 80's of showing these firearms firing on full-auto while talking about semi-autos (so-called 'assault weapons") and using the usual buzzwords about semis being "easily converted" (a blatant lie, as explained by LAPD Firearms unit Cop Trahan on the Documentary everyone should have in their collection, "The Assault on Semi-automatic Firearms"), repeating the "these guns are wanted to take on law-enforcement" and other line-blurring mind-control tactics meant to brainwash the gullible viewer into equating semis with machineguns: same old tricks dug up for the new AWB push. Let it not be ignored that ATF has a dog in this fight, since this ensures "job security" for their existence, so it behooves them to misrepresent, dissemble, and outright lie regarding this subject, positioning themselves as "experts" with "street cred" (yet with a track record as some of the most extreme violators of civil rights and harassment of gun owners in existence in the USA, they give little confidence they will do the right thing in any case). This segment was a well staged one-sided propaganda exercise which proves, as I have said many times before, that the enemy has the advantage in this propaganda war, and do-gooding fools like Sustren hide behind "news reporting" while promoting such biased brainwash baloney as this. Sustren's ex- CNN roots are showing, and gives the lie to leftists claims of Fox being "right-wing", because were that the case, this steaming pile o' shite' would never have been broadcast(!). Extrapolating from this program, there is little doubt BATFE is on board to assist in criminalizing U.S. gunowners for the pieces of plastic & metal sitting in their gunsafes (in the California mold of unconstitutional tyranny) to please the oligarchy on both sides of the border fearful of their law-abiding citizens being armed, and like the US 1920's "crime emergency", using the depredations of mad-dog criminals as the excuse...History repeating itself in it's most shameful and domineering manner...
Monday, April 20, 2009
McCain has flip-flopped on gun issues for years, and even did an
anti-gun TV spot at one point. Clueless-on firearms Greta Van Sustren
(Fox) brought up Hilary & Obama being in favor of a revived AWB and put
this question to McCain today. McCain said "we" need to beef up BATFE,
and said that the Cartels make millions of dollars and can buy guns
anywhere. When asked directly if he was in favor of a AWB, McCain said
"No". Pretty words for someone who has no real dog in the fight, and
such a suspect past record on firearms...Stay suspicious. Liberman,
when prompted by Sustren, made it clear he believed the Cartels are
buying most of their guns in the USA, and suggested higher penalties for
those caught doing "straw-man" buys as the solution. Shame on you, Joe!
How a man with Liberman's intellect can fall for this anti-gun semi-auto
ban mind-control propaganda is as disappointing as believing McCain is
serious and reliable with his anti-AWB claims...
From John Farnam:
Gas-piston Stoner Rifles:
I just completed an Urban Rifle Course in UT. Students brought the
usual assortment of AR-15s and Kalashnikovs. We also had one RA/XCR
(mine) and one DSA/FAL. All ran fine for the duration, except for one
of the AR-15s, which was a gas-piston model. All the other ARs were
conventional Stoner System (pressurized receiver) models, and all
experienced no more than the usual number of hiccups.
However, the one gas-piston ARs displayed many unscheduled
interruptions, mostly failures to eject. We all made a mental note that
this is not a rifle any of us would want!
Unhappily, this experience has been typical at our UR Courses. As a
rule, gas-piston ARs do not hold up nearly as well as conventional ARs.
To add insult to injury, gas-piston ARs are a good deal more expensive
than are standard models!
It strikes me that, in their enthusiasm to maintain the classic AR-15
profile, designers attempting to equip this rifle with a gas-piston have
produced both a piston and op-rod that are tiny when compared with those
found on the XCR, SIG/556, and other military rifles in the same 223
caliber. Apparently, a gas-piston system that small is below the
reliability threshold, because we can't seem to keep them running
The original Stoner System (pressurized receiver) has had a
disappointing tenure. Compared with gas-piston systems, like the
Kalashnikov, it has been excessively maintenance-dependant, because so
much garbage ends up in the receiver. Gas-piston rifles don't get
nearly as dirty, nearly as fast.
However, in my opinion, gas-pistons and op-rods must be substantial,
even on rifles chambered for 223. Tiny parts and tiny systems do not
reliable rifles make!
(John clearly has his brand preferences. It's not clear if they have
influenced this report.)
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President, as well. President Obama, as a candidate for your office, you said that you wanted to see the assault ban weapon -- the ban on assault weapons reinstated. Your attorney general has spoken in favor of this. Mexican officials have also spoken in favor of it. But we haven't heard you say that since you took office. Do you plan to keep your promise? And if not, how do you explain that to the American people?
And, President Calderón -- I'm sorry, if I may -- would you like to see this ban reinstated? And have you raised that today with President Obama? Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, we did discuss this extensively in our meetings. I have not backed off at all from my belief that the gun -- the assault weapons ban made sense.
And I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the 2nd Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we now know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence -- violence in our own country, as well.
Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across a border, is illegal. That's something that we can stop.
And so our focus is to work with Secretary Napolitano, Atty. Gen. Holder, our entire Homeland Security team, ATF, border security, everybody who is involved in this, to coordinate with our counterparts in Mexico to significantly ramp up our enforcement of existing laws.
"I have not backed off at all from my belief that the gun -- the assault weapons ban made sense"(?!)....
Holocaust survivor's quote: "When a man says he is coming to kill you - Believe him"!!...Don't let anyone convince you that you are "paranoid"...The man has blatantly made his intentions crystal clear: he wants to criminalize you for (legally) owning simple semi-auto firearms: Believe him"!!...
Friday, April 17, 2009
OPINION: Beware conspiracy of dunces with assault rifles [Beaver County Times, Pa.;firstname.lastname@example.org] Apr. 13--In light of the murder of three Pittsburgh police officers last weekend, we're going to veer off the usual political course today. If you're a nutty, right-wing conspiracy theorist or an assault rifle fan, just save your time and skip to the Sports section.(OK, begins with insults right out of the starting gate)
Everyone else still with us? Good. Two things occurred to us after the coward Richard Poplawski gunned down officers with an AK-47(buzzword): Why'd this nut have a high-powered assault rifle(Lie & buzzword: 7.62x39 is in fact a reduced power cartridge), and why'd he think the federal government was stripping him of his Second Amendment rights?(Unproved allegation with no attribution ever given in reports of this story). On the AK-47, we'd like to tell all those right-to-bear-arms absolutists, "Thanks." Your efforts to allow mass-killing weapons to flood our country has paid off. Congratulations. You must be so proud. (More misdirection combined with buzzwords and flat out lies: Milclone semi-autos are not and have never been what is implied here: "Machine guns". This so-called "AK-47" was no "mass killing weapon", and this comment is merely a cheap shot only uninformed fools will buy from an "author" worse than foolish: an intentional liar and deciever).
Understand something. We're no namby-pamby, ban-all-the-guns liberal. Our dad kept a loaded Saturday Night Special in his nightstand drawer (Let that one slip, eh?. "Saturday night special" is a buzzword, a pejorative term revived by the gun-ban nuts years ago in reference to affordable firearms. No responsible gun owner would use the term. It is also implicitly racist, since the term was taken from the phrase "Ni**e*town Saturday night", referring to crime problems in drinking establishments. No pejorative was ever developed to explain similar behavior in other parts of town), and we did plenty of target shooting while growing up. (We were pretty darn good, too.) (This proves nothing. It is common for elitists to own firearms but not approve of the "lower classes" having the same rights). Heck, if the (truly liberal) wife wouldn't take the kids and leave, we'd have a gun next to our bed, too. (Just admitted who wears the pants in that family)
But, why is it so important that Americans have the right to own assault weapons (buzzword, and a firearm that technically does not exist in reality, only in political propaganda) whose sole purpose is to kill as many human beings as possible in the shortest amount of time? (Repeating the tired lie & talking point from the 80's anti-semiauto ban nuts. Again, milclone semi-autos are not machineguns, and even true full-auto small caliber rifles are meant to be used at squad level, i.e., several people working in unison, to be effective, and even then with a full sized general purpose machinegun as a base of fire to support the riflemen. This is a lie, based on a fantasy, and is a BIG lie to boot). Now, before you amateur historians start screaming, "Our founding fathers ... ," just shut up.(Misdirection & insult).
Do you really think that the powdered wig-wearing founders of this country imagined a world with AK-47s?(buzzord) Those guys kept women from voting, and some owned slaves. Were those OK, too? (irrelevant & illegitimate argument. Technology is neutral, moral choices do not equate. If the author had done his homework, he would know that many slaveowners did not approve of the practice, both Washington and Jefferson wrote about this). It's 2009, for God's sake. We have orbiting space stations and every 9-year-old has an iPod and cell phone. Times change, whether you like it or not.(The author does not seem to realize this particular argument cuts both ways)
And don't even think about making the ridiculous anything-can-be-a-deadly-weapon-so-why-don't-we-ban-baseball-bats argument. We've never heard of a deranged guy killing three cops in a matter of seconds with a baseball bat. Have you? (Another Misdirection argument: How is time relevant to murder? Ultimately, it is still murder, no matter what the means. The French Knights being slaughtered by waves of English Longbow arrows during the battle of Agincourt might have a different opinion, no gunpowder needed. This is pure scare tactics applied to firearms the author fears and hates). Next on our Rant List today are all those who fan the conspiracy flames and feed the psychoses of the Tin Foil Hat Crowd that obsesses over whacked-out right-wing talk-shows.(Nice set of layered insults here. The old "give a dog a bad name so we can hang em" gambit)
From the creepy and weepy Glenn Beck, Faux News' own Doomsday Nostradamus, to the frightfully kooky extremist Michael Savage to second-tier wannabes like Pittsburgh's Jim Quinn, those who sow the seeds of perpetual paranoia should, but never will, accept their share of blame for the Poplawskis of this world.(So, these individuals are now responsible for the actions of a weak-minded habitual criminal with homicidal intent? Wonder what talk shows Jessie James or Jack the Ripper listened to that inspired them to murder people?. There will always be mental & emotional weaklings in society. Like Barnam's "suckers" they are born every minute. Some become murderers, some don't. The author is playing a twisted blame game here).
Right-wing radio and TV screeches daily about the socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist Obama government storm troopers coming to squelch their right to spew nonsense when there's no threat of that happening. (Google "the Fairness Doctrine").("no threat of that happening"? Where is the proof to back up that statement?. No, the author has selective hearing and is deaf to the propaganda of the side he supports, not to mention what he does himself. This "opinion" is riddled with it!)
They create fantasy scenarios (Obama's coming to take your guns!)(Excuse me, but Obama has never hidden the fact that he wants to ban guns, in fact he just said it again on TV while on his trip to gun-hostile Mexico. Obama openly stated that when the time is right he will do it, and this is also in writing on his own website. This is fact, not fantasy as the author claims) to whip their moronic minions (insults and more insults) into a frenzy for their own commercial success and then play the constitutionally protected victim when their bile results in actual violence.(again with the misdiretion blame game)
Let's say we howled about the county commissioners increasing taxes by 100 percent, even though it isn't remotely true.
Every day we would seethe about those so-and-so commissioners and their socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist intentions. And then one day, a guy walks up to the courthouse and sprays the commissioners' offices with bullets while screaming about his taxes.
You don't think we'd bear any responsibility for that? (Er...I have 2 words for you: Thomas Paine!). We've spent our life defending freedom of speech, and we'd die to keep it. But that freedom is being abused and mocked by despicable clowns whose only true beliefs seem to be higher ratings and revenue generated by followers filled with hate and fear. (another illegitimate argument. Where is the proof of this greed driven allegation? There is none because this can't be proven to begin with and is merely more character assassination)
And, that, our friends, is a damn shame.
(The only shame here is the "author" using the dead bodies, dancing in the blood of those murdered Police heroes to justify this inaccurate, insulting, bombastic, arrogant, elitist attack against citizens exercising their speech & firearms rights by tarring them with the same brush as a psycho-killer. No, the author has deemed, like all too many politicians and their running dogs in the media, that Millions of Americans are ideologically suspect and should be turned into felons merely because of inanimate objects locked in their gun safes. Turned into a "menace" by stroke of a pen, as is the case right now in California. Woe to the Republic if they are forced to emulate that baleful model of unconstitutional tyranny)... As for author email@example.com "Opinion" piece?. Well, we all know what opinions are similar to, and the author proves he is not only similar to one, he is one!!!...
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Meeting face-to-face with Mexican President (Oligarch) Felipe Calderon, President Obama on Thursday said the U.S. is to blame for much of Mexico's drug violence, and he set up a major congressional gun-control battle by calling on the Senate to ratify a treaty designed to track and cut the flow of guns to other countries.
Mr. Obama said he wants to renew a ban on some semiautomatic weapons but that it is not likely to pass Congress. Instead, he called for the Senate to ratify a decade-old hemispherewide treaty that would require nations to mark all weapons produced in the country and track them to make sure no weapons were exported to countries where they were banned.
"I will not pretend that this is Mexico's responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs in the United States is what's helping keep these cartels in business," Mr. Obama said at a joint news conference with Mr. Calderon. "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border."(an outright blatant lie and he knows it and so does BATFE...This is simply another Big Lie brainwashing talking point designed for repetition by lamestream media running-dogs until it becomes Orwellian "truth")...
But the treaty is likely to run into opposition from gun rights backers, and the Senate's top Democrat was noncommittal Thursday about the measure.
Mr. Calderon (aka:Oligarch tyrant with no respect for civil rights in mexico and the USA) urged the U.S. to consider a gun registry and a prohibition on bulk sales of firearms.
In taking responsibility (Read: Cravenly bowing to foreign leaders to cover incompetence in dealing with out of control crime by blaming law-abiding US Gun owners for mexican criminal activity) for some of the causes of Mexico's drug violence, Mr. Obama was following through on signals from top administration officials. Mexico wants the U.S. to provide money and equipment such as military helicopters, and to impose tougher restrictions on guns.
(yeah, guns that have litle to do with mexican cartel crime, but a lot to do with crushing american liberty)...
During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama said he wanted to renew the 1994 ban on some semiautomatic weapons, which expired in 2004. But he told his Mexican hosts that it's not likely to pass Congress, saying instead that the U.S. should do what it can under existing laws, and go a step further by ratifying the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA).
President Clinton signed CIFTA in 1997, but it has never been ratified.
Mr. Obama said the treaty would "curb small-arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war."(Read: Backdoor around US RKBA constitutional rights)...
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said he supports Mr. Obama's ratification push and will work to get it through the Senate.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, was less committal about the specifics.
"We must work with Mexico to curtail the violence and drug trafficking on America's southern border, and must protect Americans' Second Amendment rights," Mr. Reid said. "I look forward to working with the president to ensure we do both in a responsible way."
Mr. Obama repeated the statistic that 90 percent of illegal firearms used in crimes come from the U.S., and Mr. Calderon backed him.
But gun-rights groups have challenged the number, and Fox News said the statistic is distorted because it covers only a subset of the weapons the Mexican government seizes.
In its report, Fox News said only about 17 percent of the 29,000 guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes in 2007 and 2008 could be positively traced to the U.S. Some couldn't be traced at all and others were never submitted to U.S. officials for tracing because they clearly came from somewhere else.
It's also unclear how much effect stopping the U.S. flow would have.
"That to some degree is a red herring because while it's convenient for the cartels to acquire weapons in the United States, the cartels have so much money they can go into the open arms market and buy weapons. Central America, for example, is chockablock with sophisticated weapons left over from the 1980s," said George Grayson, a professor at the College of William & Mary and a Mexico researcher.
"It's a good reason to bash the U.S. because it is unfortunate that the arms are flowing southward, but if you cut off completely that flow of arms, it would be a thorn in the side, but not a dagger in the heart to the cartels," he said.
Readers: See earlier posts here for proof about this myth of US legal firearms & the cartels, and why this big lie is being pushed...
California: High-Capacity Magazines in the Crosshairs!
(i.e.: Normal Capacity Magazines...Remember, in CA, you can't even have a detachable mag rifle i.e. AK/AR15 to begin with, so this is simply more harassment!)
Please Contact the Senate Public Safety Committee Today!
Senate Bill 776, sponsored by State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9), has been introduced in Sacramento. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Public Safety Committee and could be heard on Tuesday, April 21 or Tuesday, April 28.
Simply put, SB776 would mandate the registration of all magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The possession of unregistered magazines would be a crime and punishable up to a year in prison.
It is critical that gun owners voice their opposition to SB776. Please contact the members of the Senate Public Safety Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose this bill....
From the NRA...
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
THIS is not a .50 anti aircraft machine gun. It is a 1917-1918A series 30 Cal
thousands of which have been given to Latin American Countries over the years
and which has not been in the US inventory for almost 50 years. Jeez the press
is stupid. You need hip waders to read the news anywhere these days.
Well, you damn sure can't buy these over the counter in the USA (!!!), and
getting .30-06 ammo to feed this Baby must be a b-yotch!! God, what a bunch of
lying propagandist scum these so-called journalists are!!! (Note:Back in the
70's the USMC were still using these for live fire at the low-crawl barbed wire
Anyone care to talk about MSM exaggeration? That's a Browning M-1919 .30 cal
Machine Gun in the photos I just saw...
And it ain't on an AA pedestal, either.
How many retractions/corrections can we expect to see in the next several
days? Any odds?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Several semi-auto Barrett light 50's have already been seized in Mexico (as they are equally floating around in the Balkans) and the Mexican Police even have them on display in their captured weapons museum, but like the mythical "assault weapon", these have now morphed into "anti-aircraft machineguns"(?)...Firearms scholars know that the .50 BMG round was originally designed for use against thin skinned tanks of the world war one era (1917?!) and quickly became obsolete for that task at the end of that war...Arnold banned them in California, even though a .50 has never been used in a crime, so they must be "bad", right? (Did Feinstien tell him they could shoot through their armored VIP Limousines?). Here we have more media scare tactics/mind control/obfuscation & lies at work...
Mexican detained with anti-aircraft machine gun
MEXICO CITY (AP) - A woman was arrested guarding an arsenal that included an anti-aircraft machine gun the first weapon of its kind seized in Mexico, police said Tuesday.
The arsenal belonged to a group linked to the powerful Beltran Leyva drug cartel, federal police coordinator Gen. Rodolfo Cruz said. It also included ammunition, five rifles, a grenade and part of a grenade launcher.
Mexican drug cartels, battling a fierce crackdown by soldiers and federal police, have increasingly gotten hold of higher-powered weapons, even military-grade arms such as grenades and machine guns. That has left police particularly state and municipal forces grossly outgunned (lie), and many officers have quit following attacks.
Cruz said the confiscated .50-caliber, anti-aircraft machine gun can fire 800 rounds per minute and is capable of penetrating armor from more than 5,000 feet (1,500 meters). Police on a routine patrol Monday found the gun fitted atop an SUV at a house in northern Sonora state.
Authorities did not release any other details about the gun, including its make, where it was manufactured, or where it was sold.(No shocker there, way to obfuscate the issue, yellow "journalists"!)
The arrested suspect, Anahi Beltran Cabrera, apparently is not related to the Beltran Leyva clan, Cruz said.
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has traced many (how many?) guns seized at scenes of drug violence in Mexico to U.S. commercial sources. But determining the source of military-grade weapons such as grenades and fully automatic machine guns is more complicated.(Modifying the earlier blatant lies about US guns going south with this tidbit)
The ATF (now that they have been caught in those lies) says the grenades are mostly smuggled in through Central America, and have been traced back to the militaries of many countries, from South Korea to Spain and Israel. Some may be leftovers from the Central American civil wars.
Assailants have fired on government aircraft performing anti-drug missions in Mexico in the past, but apparently (i.e.=no factual proof) never with the caliber of weapon found Monday.
In 2006, a helicopter on a federal drug-eradication mission crashed while trying to escape ground fire, and a second helicopter was damaged by gunfire in the Pacific coast state of Guerrero.(The Viet-Cong used to do the same with standard small arms, no 50's needed, more scare tactic hype here)
Mexico is upgrading its northern and southern border checkpoints in an effort to detect and seize more guns and other contraband, installing equipment that will weigh and photograph each car and truck coming into the country.
President Barack Obama has promised to do more to stop gun trafficking from the United States to Mexico. He has pledged to dispatch nearly 500 more federal agents to the border, along with X-ray machines and drug-sniffing dogs.(Bwahahahagh!)
Mexico's drug violence has claimed more than 10,650 lives since President Felipe Calderon launched a military-led offensive against trafficking cartels in December 2006.
In March, the government sent thousands more troops to the northern border to quell escalating violence. The government announced Sunday that drug-related homicides fell 26 percent across the country in the first three months of the year, compared to the same period in 2008.