By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2016
Our government has just confirmed that we are no longer a nation of laws. Once we were a "nation of the people, by the people and for the people." Today we are a “nation of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.”
It took less than a week for the people to respond. Not only seeing Clinton's get away with ignoring the law, but coupled with another example of the repeated problem of the police shooting innocent people and not being held accountable was demonstrated.
The results were seen in Dallas, 11 police shot, 5 dead. The people will not tolerate the continued different set of rules for the elite and their minions, than the ones they must follow or be killed.
I wrote about this coming for the past few years
(here’s one). Retaliation for the elite and their minions abandoning the rule of law was inevitable.
President Obama is aghast that the people would respond this way. Like any despot, the idea that people would retaliate against the government is inconceivable. Saying from Warsaw, “There’s no possible justification for these kinds of attacks or any attack on law enforcement.” When the elites minions (cops) can and do get away with murder routinely the outcome in a free society is clear. When the rule of law no longer applies, and there is no justice through the courts, the people are left with no recourse. When law enforcement can routinely shoot unarmed people with no accountability, they not only justify, but invite attack on law enforcement.
Obama made it clear today, that the idea that the people have powerful weapons that they can use to resist the minions of the elite is the problem. Clearly the reason for the Second Amendment was so that the people, even urban blacks, would have the means to combat a tyrannical unaccountable government.
This week when the government said, Yes, Hillary broke the law, but we’re going to let her get away with it. They clearly said, the laws are to control the little people and don’t apply to your betters. Because police (minions of the elite) can and do get away with murder, and our government has declared that the elite and their minions are exempt from the law. After such a clear declaration of oligarchic despotism, violent retaliation and rebellion is all that is left.
The police created the climate by constantly and systematically protecting their own. Every cop who has seen another officer abuse the rights of a citizen, and kept their mouth shut rather than cross the thin blue line, is an accomplice not a good cop. Everyone should be held accountable for their mistakes, even cops. Especially when it costs someone their life.
The problem isn’t people having guns, it is the actions of the elites minions (cops). If we don't fix the general problem of cops literally getting away with murder, people will be sniping them all over. It is obviously a systemic problem; everyone knows nothing is going to happen to a cop who kills someone. You can’t keep shooting little girls sleeping on their couch(Aiyana Jones), and claiming you were scared as an excuse, and expect the people to tolerate it.
Last year hundreds of unarmed people were killed by the police, over 1000 people in all, but if the dead body had a pocket knife, they were classified as “armed.” The people may be stupid, but not that stupid, and can easily recognize when for every cop shot there are 30 people shot, and see the disparity noting the fact of police being trained to lie, and not notice that the Evil Minions of the Elite (cops) obfuscate, and pretend that they are in danger when they are not.
Why should the people trust the police when the law says it’s legal for cops to lie to suspects and the people, but a crime for the people to lie to cops?
As long as the minions of the elite maintain their quasi-military attitude, their us vs them mentality, and their legal unaccountability, they will increasingly find themselves at war against the American people. It is a war they cannot win.
The shooting of 11 minions of the elite in Dallas is not remotely surprising. What is surprising is the sheer number of people who won’t sympathize with the Dallas police and their families. The police consider themselves above the law, but they are not beyond the reach of an justly outraged public.
Dallas is an unnecessary tragedy. The specific officers that were shot and killed, in all likelihood did nothing to deserve the violence inflicted upon them. The way for them to avoid future attacks is to stop pretending that being scared is sufficient reason to shoot a member of the public, to erase the thin blue line and hold their fellow officers accountable.
No sane person would celebrate the current situation, it has been predicted, but the repeated calls to hold the police and our government accountable have gone unheeded. When the FBI boldly proclaims that yes the elite did break the law, but we won’t prosecute, and cops routinely (hundreds of times a year) shoot the unarmed public without accountability, it clearly demonstrates to the people that the rule of law is dead, and the people cannot expect justice from the government. The people can, and will, seek justice through other means when the government refuses to enforce the rule of law.
Buckle up people, civil war is here, and things are going to get worse before it gets better.
Showing posts with label second ammendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label second ammendment. Show all posts
Friday, July 8, 2016
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
43% of FL GOP Senators are Against
The 2nd Amendment
By Tom Rhodes, 4/22/2015
If you are a supporter of the 2nd Amendment you must seriously consider switching to the Libertarian Party. The fact is clear that as much as 43% of the Florida Senate Republicans are firmly against the 2nd Amendment and your gun rights.
There are two pro 2nd Amendment bills in the 2015 legislative session. Neither will be passed because the senate committees won’t pass them. Those bills are SB176 and SB180.
SB180 died in the Senate Education Pre-K-12 Committee. This Committee is chaired by Republican John Legg, and is made of 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Do the math, and it is clear the Republicans are against SB180 and the Second Amendment.
SB176 died in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This Committee is chaired by Republican Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, and is made of 7 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Do the math, and it is clear the Republicans are also against SB176 and the Second Amendment.
If all the Democrats supported ST176 and SB180 43% of the Republicans were against the 2nd Amendment. Even it the more likely event is that all the Democrats voted against those bills, 29% of the Florida Senate Republicans are against the Second Amendment. Voting Republican is not voting for a group that will protect your rights.
If you don’t know what Senate Bills 176 and 180 are, go to google and search “FL SB176” and “FL SB180”. As an informed citizen it is your responsibility to know what your elected representatives are doing. If your reading this you have internet access. Your Florida representative lets you know what’s going on at www.myfloridahouse.gov and your Florida senator lets you know what’s going on at www.myflsenate.gov . If you can’t be bothered, you’re part of the problem not the solution.
If the 2nd Amendment is important to you, you obviously have a problem. Electing Democrats is a fast way to losing your rights, and electing Republicans is slower way to losing your rights, certainly not a way to restore them. There is another choice for those who support liberty and freedom, including the 2nd Amendment. Look at the Libertarian Party
If you are a supporter of the 2nd Amendment you must seriously consider switching to the Libertarian Party. The fact is clear that as much as 43% of the Florida Senate Republicans are firmly against the 2nd Amendment and your gun rights.
There are two pro 2nd Amendment bills in the 2015 legislative session. Neither will be passed because the senate committees won’t pass them. Those bills are SB176 and SB180.
SB180 died in the Senate Education Pre-K-12 Committee. This Committee is chaired by Republican John Legg, and is made of 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Do the math, and it is clear the Republicans are against SB180 and the Second Amendment.
SB176 died in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This Committee is chaired by Republican Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, and is made of 7 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Do the math, and it is clear the Republicans are also against SB176 and the Second Amendment.
If all the Democrats supported ST176 and SB180 43% of the Republicans were against the 2nd Amendment. Even it the more likely event is that all the Democrats voted against those bills, 29% of the Florida Senate Republicans are against the Second Amendment. Voting Republican is not voting for a group that will protect your rights.
If you don’t know what Senate Bills 176 and 180 are, go to google and search “FL SB176” and “FL SB180”. As an informed citizen it is your responsibility to know what your elected representatives are doing. If your reading this you have internet access. Your Florida representative lets you know what’s going on at www.myfloridahouse.gov and your Florida senator lets you know what’s going on at www.myflsenate.gov . If you can’t be bothered, you’re part of the problem not the solution.
If the 2nd Amendment is important to you, you obviously have a problem. Electing Democrats is a fast way to losing your rights, and electing Republicans is slower way to losing your rights, certainly not a way to restore them. There is another choice for those who support liberty and freedom, including the 2nd Amendment. Look at the Libertarian Party
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Public Schools are Cruel and Unusual.
By Tom Rhodes, 9/29/2013
Let’s start with the first example, Schools claim students have no civil rights and that even their actions on private property, not during school hours, are under the schools jurisdiction. Fox News Reports the following: .
Government schools say your child can be expelled for playing with toy guns in their own yard. “The school’s so-called “zero-tolerance” policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report.”
One of the suspended (soon to be expelled) boys’ mother said, “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school,”
Don’t confuse the fact that the boys, are not totally innocent, they are guilty of acting like boys. Some say they may have shot at some kids who weren’t part of their play. That’s something that should be punished, but not without due process, or by the school which clearly has no jurisdiction on the boy’s parents private property.
Don’t thik this is a isolated incident, Public schools now have a pattern of trying to dismiss students civil rights, especially recognition of the second amendment. Don’t take my word for it Google these absurd actions over the past couple years.
Bureaucrats suspended a little boy for taking bites out of a pop tart in such a way that it was shaped like a gun.
Bureaucrats suspended a 7-year boy for pretending to throw a non-existent grenade on the playground.
Bureaucrats suspended a 6-year old boy in Maryland for making a gun shape with his finger.
Bureaucrats busted a 5-year old girl in Pennsylvania for having a pink plastic gun that shoots bubbles.
A teacher in Rhode Island caught an 8-year old boy with some plastic toy army men.
Bureaucrats evacuated a school because an 11-year old boy made a motion detector for his science experiment.
Bureaucrats in Florida kicked an 8-year old boy out of school for a year because he had a plastic gun in his backpack.
In Virginia, not only did bureaucrats suspend a 10-year old boy for a toy gun, called the cops and had the kid arrested.
A third-grader got in trouble for having toy army men on his birthday cupcakes.
Two second-graders got suspended for holding pencils like they were guns.
Bureaucrats suspended a kindergartener for having a lego-sized toy gun.
Bureaucrats wanted a deaf child to change his sign-language name because it required him to shape his fingers in a way that resembled a gun.
Clearly the schools are making a concerted effort to indoctrinate through excessive punishment the children of America to undermine our Second Amendment. Many of these punishments are clearly disproportionate, to the point of being cruel and unusual.
Let’s start with the first example, Schools claim students have no civil rights and that even their actions on private property, not during school hours, are under the schools jurisdiction. Fox News Reports the following: .
Natural Born Killers
Two seventh-grade students in Virginia Beach, Va., were handed long-term suspensions Tuesday that will last until the end of the school year for playing with an airsoft gun in one of their front yards while waiting for the school bus. WAVY-TV reports that 13-year-old Khalid Caraballo and Aidan Clark will face an additional hearing in January to determine if they will be expelled for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” because the guns were fired at two others playing in Caraballo’s yard. …Khalid claims he never took the toy gun to the designated bus stop or Larkspur Middle School, according to the report. Two other students who fired guns were also suspended.
Government schools say your child can be expelled for playing with toy guns in their own yard. “The school’s so-called “zero-tolerance” policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report.”
One of the suspended (soon to be expelled) boys’ mother said, “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school,”
Don’t confuse the fact that the boys, are not totally innocent, they are guilty of acting like boys. Some say they may have shot at some kids who weren’t part of their play. That’s something that should be punished, but not without due process, or by the school which clearly has no jurisdiction on the boy’s parents private property.
Don’t thik this is a isolated incident, Public schools now have a pattern of trying to dismiss students civil rights, especially recognition of the second amendment. Don’t take my word for it Google these absurd actions over the past couple years.
Clearly the schools are making a concerted effort to indoctrinate through excessive punishment the children of America to undermine our Second Amendment. Many of these punishments are clearly disproportionate, to the point of being cruel and unusual.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Gun Control Realities
By Tom Rhodes, 4/8/13
The reality is the current gun control debate is about controlling the people, not guns, and the clear desire of statists in the Democrat party to the incremental disarmament of the American People. Although they try to say they believe in the Second Amendment, and "Nobody want to take away your guns," both their actions and words betray their intentions. Worse yet they don't even know what they are talking about.
Colorado Congress woman, Diana DeGette, showed the true intentions of Obama and the statists in the Democrat party when not once but three times demonstrated she's clueless about guns and accidentally let out their true desire. She is the lead sponsor of the cornerstone to proposed gun control legislation, the bill to ban high capacity magazines.
DeGette was soundly trashed and ridiculed across the internet (main stream media only reports statist approved stories) for her clear performance at the Denver Post forum on gun control. DeGette exposed the true intentions of gun controllers while simultaneously demonstrating she's totally ignorant of what she wants to legislate and restrict. She explained the genius behind banning high capacity magazines: "These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."
If you're reading this you probably know a magazine is a reloadable metal tube with a spring to feed bullets into a firearm, you'd think one of the primary sponsors of a bill legislating magazines would at least know the basics of what they are and how they are used. DeGette didn't, but once the firestorm on the net exploded over her "gaff" she quickly attempted damage control. Her spokesperson asserted the Representative meant to refer to "clips" not magazines. Now it's understandable for a non-gun person to confuse a clip and a magazine. A clip holds bullets for quick re-loading of magazines. But for a Congress woman who has "taken the lead on" this issue for years, this is arrogant ignorance at its finest. Not only are clips generally reusable like magazines, they are not the subject of DeGette's bill. Why on earth would she be referring to clips to correct her ignorance on magazines?
Now for strike three. At that same Denver Post Forum, when a senior citizen asked DeGette about having to rely on police response, rather than self defense, she reassured him noting that Denver police will be there within minutes, but "You'd probably be dead anyway." She made it clear that disarming or rendering the arms Americans have as useless because they don't have bullets is more important than the safety and well being of individual citizens.
Current law is clear, to prevent a backdoor gun registrations system, the law expressly prohibits the creation of "any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions." all it is supposed to do is verify that a purchaser is legally allowed to purchase a firearm, not track who has purchased what firearms, or even track if a person has purchased a firearm. The truth is the only loophole closed in the Leah-Schumer-Reid proposal for a "universal" background check, is the one that prohibits a national firearm registry. The loose language of the bill would allow the Department of Justice itself to keep centralized records of who received what guns and where, by sale or gift from one individual to another. It's gun registration no matter what they try to tell us.
Saying that the proposed universal back ground checks aren't a gun registration, is a lie. Without keeping track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners, they could never enforce their desires; they want and will keep permanent records of all firearm sales. This is a defacto gun registration system. What we are asked to believe is that our government can't keep track of its own borders or the 12 million people who live here illegally, but can keep track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners without registering all guns.
Why the fear of gun registration? Because not just in Europe but right here in the USA gun registration has led to gun confiscation. Not only could it happen here in the USA it has. In California after passing a law requiring registration of assault weapons, it then changed the law informed registered owners to turn them in. Letter from Calf. telling you to turn in your gun.
The statists have let it slip, the want total control of civilian gun ownership, the start is to identify where and who has the guns. Have no fear they won't send SWAT teams to your house to confiscate your gun, you'll just get a letter saying ". . . . our records indicate that you own a Bushmaster Model AR15 SN: 123456780, purchased 1/1/2013 from Joe's Gun Shop. Please turn this weapon in to your local Police dept. Should you fail to do so within 30 days an APB for your arrest will be issued, and the IRS will freeze all your bank accounts, and the Department of Transportation will revoke your driver's license. . . . "
The reality is the current gun control debate is about controlling the people, not guns, and the clear desire of statists in the Democrat party to the incremental disarmament of the American People. Although they try to say they believe in the Second Amendment, and "Nobody want to take away your guns," both their actions and words betray their intentions. Worse yet they don't even know what they are talking about.
Colorado Congress woman, Diana DeGette, showed the true intentions of Obama and the statists in the Democrat party when not once but three times demonstrated she's clueless about guns and accidentally let out their true desire. She is the lead sponsor of the cornerstone to proposed gun control legislation, the bill to ban high capacity magazines.
DeGette was soundly trashed and ridiculed across the internet (main stream media only reports statist approved stories) for her clear performance at the Denver Post forum on gun control. DeGette exposed the true intentions of gun controllers while simultaneously demonstrating she's totally ignorant of what she wants to legislate and restrict. She explained the genius behind banning high capacity magazines: "These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."
If you're reading this you probably know a magazine is a reloadable metal tube with a spring to feed bullets into a firearm, you'd think one of the primary sponsors of a bill legislating magazines would at least know the basics of what they are and how they are used. DeGette didn't, but once the firestorm on the net exploded over her "gaff" she quickly attempted damage control. Her spokesperson asserted the Representative meant to refer to "clips" not magazines. Now it's understandable for a non-gun person to confuse a clip and a magazine. A clip holds bullets for quick re-loading of magazines. But for a Congress woman who has "taken the lead on" this issue for years, this is arrogant ignorance at its finest. Not only are clips generally reusable like magazines, they are not the subject of DeGette's bill. Why on earth would she be referring to clips to correct her ignorance on magazines?
Now for strike three. At that same Denver Post Forum, when a senior citizen asked DeGette about having to rely on police response, rather than self defense, she reassured him noting that Denver police will be there within minutes, but "You'd probably be dead anyway." She made it clear that disarming or rendering the arms Americans have as useless because they don't have bullets is more important than the safety and well being of individual citizens.
Current law is clear, to prevent a backdoor gun registrations system, the law expressly prohibits the creation of "any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions." all it is supposed to do is verify that a purchaser is legally allowed to purchase a firearm, not track who has purchased what firearms, or even track if a person has purchased a firearm. The truth is the only loophole closed in the Leah-Schumer-Reid proposal for a "universal" background check, is the one that prohibits a national firearm registry. The loose language of the bill would allow the Department of Justice itself to keep centralized records of who received what guns and where, by sale or gift from one individual to another. It's gun registration no matter what they try to tell us.
Saying that the proposed universal back ground checks aren't a gun registration, is a lie. Without keeping track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners, they could never enforce their desires; they want and will keep permanent records of all firearm sales. This is a defacto gun registration system. What we are asked to believe is that our government can't keep track of its own borders or the 12 million people who live here illegally, but can keep track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners without registering all guns.
Why the fear of gun registration? Because not just in Europe but right here in the USA gun registration has led to gun confiscation. Not only could it happen here in the USA it has. In California after passing a law requiring registration of assault weapons, it then changed the law informed registered owners to turn them in. Letter from Calf. telling you to turn in your gun.
The statists have let it slip, the want total control of civilian gun ownership, the start is to identify where and who has the guns. Have no fear they won't send SWAT teams to your house to confiscate your gun, you'll just get a letter saying ". . . . our records indicate that you own a Bushmaster Model AR15 SN: 123456780, purchased 1/1/2013 from Joe's Gun Shop. Please turn this weapon in to your local Police dept. Should you fail to do so within 30 days an APB for your arrest will be issued, and the IRS will freeze all your bank accounts, and the Department of Transportation will revoke your driver's license. . . . "
Friday, April 5, 2013
It's about Honesty
By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.
This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.
Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.
. . . .
The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.
Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Friday, March 1, 2013
Is VP Responsible?
By Tom Rhodes, 3/1/2012
Does Brian Szymanski living in Green Acres Delaware have a case against VP Joe Biden. Taking Delaware's Favorite Son and Vice President Joe Biden's advice Mr. Szymanski discharged his shotgun outside his back door. The result was the New Castle County Police arresting him and charging him with reckless endangering in the first degree and discharging rifles or other explosives. No injuries or property damage were reported.
While explaining that you don't "need" and assault weapon, and are better off with a double barreled shotgun, Joe Biden publicly said he had advised his wife, Jill, "if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house." Joe Biden is part of the ruling elite; he knows that if he or his wife had done as he recommended she would not face any criminal charges. What he and the other ruling elite in Washington forget is that unlike them, everybody else is expected to follow the law.
Not only was Biden's advice bad advice, he recommended something that is clearly illegal. In Joe Biden's home state, Delaware, the law is clear; it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. As Mr. Szymanski found out shooting a gun in the air results in felony reckless endangering and other charges. Mr. Szymanski is obviously not all there, he probably didn't even know that his actions were the exact actions Vice President Joe Biden advised his wife and all of America to take. Biden has once again proven himself to be a gaff prone idiot, unless of course he's a sneaky cunning Machiavellian manipulator who is trying to dupe law abiding gun owners into illegal in order to forfeit their gun rights. . . . Can't be; you know the old expression, if it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, then it must be an idiot; Biden's an idiot.
Shooting anytime you don't know exactly what you're shooting at is irresponsible and a clear violation of the most fundamental firearm safety rules. These rules are part of every set of rules at every shooting range, or rules recommended by any gun organization, or any group that uses guns for any reason. Nobody who owns a gun and has bothered to read any owner's manual or taken any concealed weapons course hasn't heard or read them in some form or another.
Joe Biden's recommendation was not only ill advised and contrary to the most basic gun safety rules, and illegal in his home state, they clearly demonstrate his ignorance. His ignorance makes him dangerous, as are most of the ignorant ideas uneducated anti-gun leftists spew regularly.
Too bad we don't actually hold politicians accountable. If we did then Brian Szymanski would have a case against VP Joe Biden. But the reality is that both the rule of law and equality under the law are dead in the USA. The laws that apply to you, me, and most everybody else do not apply to the elitists in Washington. Follow the advice of the ruling elite at your own peril.
Does Brian Szymanski living in Green Acres Delaware have a case against VP Joe Biden. Taking Delaware's Favorite Son and Vice President Joe Biden's advice Mr. Szymanski discharged his shotgun outside his back door. The result was the New Castle County Police arresting him and charging him with reckless endangering in the first degree and discharging rifles or other explosives. No injuries or property damage were reported.
While explaining that you don't "need" and assault weapon, and are better off with a double barreled shotgun, Joe Biden publicly said he had advised his wife, Jill, "if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house." Joe Biden is part of the ruling elite; he knows that if he or his wife had done as he recommended she would not face any criminal charges. What he and the other ruling elite in Washington forget is that unlike them, everybody else is expected to follow the law.
Not only was Biden's advice bad advice, he recommended something that is clearly illegal. In Joe Biden's home state, Delaware, the law is clear; it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. As Mr. Szymanski found out shooting a gun in the air results in felony reckless endangering and other charges. Mr. Szymanski is obviously not all there, he probably didn't even know that his actions were the exact actions Vice President Joe Biden advised his wife and all of America to take. Biden has once again proven himself to be a gaff prone idiot, unless of course he's a sneaky cunning Machiavellian manipulator who is trying to dupe law abiding gun owners into illegal in order to forfeit their gun rights. . . . Can't be; you know the old expression, if it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, then it must be an idiot; Biden's an idiot.
Shooting anytime you don't know exactly what you're shooting at is irresponsible and a clear violation of the most fundamental firearm safety rules. These rules are part of every set of rules at every shooting range, or rules recommended by any gun organization, or any group that uses guns for any reason. Nobody who owns a gun and has bothered to read any owner's manual or taken any concealed weapons course hasn't heard or read them in some form or another.
RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
Joe Biden's recommendation was not only ill advised and contrary to the most basic gun safety rules, and illegal in his home state, they clearly demonstrate his ignorance. His ignorance makes him dangerous, as are most of the ignorant ideas uneducated anti-gun leftists spew regularly.
Too bad we don't actually hold politicians accountable. If we did then Brian Szymanski would have a case against VP Joe Biden. But the reality is that both the rule of law and equality under the law are dead in the USA. The laws that apply to you, me, and most everybody else do not apply to the elitists in Washington. Follow the advice of the ruling elite at your own peril.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Self Defense; Liberals Don't Get It
By Tom Rhodes, 2/28/2013
Liberals simply don't understand self defense. Period. Take VP Biden's latest gaff where he truly demonstrated both his ignorance. Saying we don't "need" "assault weapons," and we should "buy a shotgun" is both dumb and dangerous. Biden argued that double-barreled shotguns are easier to use than modern sporting rifles like the AR15, which they aren't. He then went on to recommend, when you suspect a dangerous situation, you should simply walk outside and fire a couple of shotgun blasts into the night. Not only is he recommending criminally negligent actions his recommendations violate fundamental firearm safety.
If you are dumb enough to follow Biden's recommendation you are screwed. You are now standing outside, with an unloaded shot gun that is slow to reload, slow to maneuver, and hot to the touch. If you actually hit what you weren't aiming at you may have murdered an innocent person and endangered your neighbors or bystanders. How would you explain to a jury that you didn't know what you were shooting at, or near, or what you were going to hit?
A double barreled shotgun is not suitable for self-defense; it is an antique technology barely more modern than a muzzle loader. Reloading with speed takes lots of practice, and room. Their break action, shell removal and replacement, is far more difficult than pressing a button and inserting a magazine. They are light and generally have a massive "kick" that makes them unsuitable for smaller people with less upper body strength. If there is more than 1 or 2 criminals, you are in real trouble. Considering most of the violent crime in the US is in cities, and associated with gangs, where a person is most likely to need self defense a large cumbersome 2 shot weapon that is slow to re-load is not a good choice for self defense.
The abject ignorance of leftists concerning self-protection and preservation is not just their absence of understanding the technology of self-defense, but their claimed expertise. It is sad what qualifies as an "expert" by liberals. Not just the continued mis-naming of automatic weapons, but the general mis-characterization of weapons in general. When the leftists in the press bring out people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about to most of gun toting redneck America, their invariable ignorance of firearms, is so blatant that one can only assume they are driven by emotions not facts. Considering the intelligence and knowledge they claim the only assumption that can be made is when a liberal is making such obvious "errors" in discussion on firearms they are doing so purposefully. Most of America calls that lying.
ABC covering up for Michelle Obama's gaff on saying teens had access to "automatic" pistols is just another example of the fact that either the left is totally ignorant or believes most of the people are stupid. In either case it's a lie.
Obama's desire to fundamentally change America can be summed up in the actions of his Secretary of State,John Kerry, who on foreign soil called Americans and American freedom "stupid." That is all you need to know about liberals attitude toward this nation, the Constitution, and the average American.
Liberals talking about firearms are lying. Period. The leaked internal Justice Department memo noted that the proposed assault weapons ban would have no effect on gun crime or gun violence. They know the truth, they want to confiscate guns because they fear an armed people. They think you're too ignorant and gullible to realize the truth. They are using emotions not reason, facts, or logic to attack the Second Amendment. Why, because it works. Just like they did in New Orleans after Katrina, the government will come and take your weapons. They think you'll willingly give them up, I think they are wrong. Just like for self defense AR15's not double barreled shotguns and semi-automatic pistols not antique revolvers, are the self-defense weapons of choice for most Americans; We the People are not stupid, and will not willingly give up our individual rights without a fight. If Washington DC does like the ruling elite tried to do in 1776, they too will start a war with the people that they cannot win.
As equality under the law, and the rule of law, are relegated to mere anachronisms of the past, We the People will abandon any compulsions, morals, or customs to obey the dictates of the ruling elite in Washington. Already the duly elected sheriff's of the country are pledging to the people, and the ruling elite in DC to not only not enforce further restrictions on the Second Amendment, but arrest federal agents who attempt to do so. We the People can and will simply ignore the dictates of DC. We do so concerning drugs, we do so concerning speed limits, we do so concerning seat belts, we do so concerning a huge variety of the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations and laws that the ruling elite dictate through unelected "regulators." The willful ignorance of the ruling elite may cause repercussions they can't fathom.
We've compromised enough, no more; the evidence can be seen in every sporting goods store in America, where the shelves are bare and AR15's and ammo fly off the shelf as soon fast as it can be shipped. Americans are arming themselves and will not give up those arms; Period! The government need not fear the armed citizen, unless of course they become too oppressive. Not all of America is the wussified liberals of the big city; much of America is fiercely independent and doesn't depend on government or want government to take care of us, we can and will do that for ourselves. We believe the job of government is to protect our rights, from those who would use force or fraud to infringe upon them. You see most Americans are truly libertarian, unwilling to use force against others but equally willing to use force in self defense.
In our history the turning point that changed a people trying to work with the ruling elite to get fair treatment from government into a war, our American Revolution, was when the government tried to take away and control the weapons of the people. Paul Revere's ride was not simply to warn that the "British are coming" but to warn that the government is here to take our weapons. All experience has shown that We the People are disposed to suffer the evils of oppressive government, while such evils are sufferable, than to right ourselves and abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when the government abuses and usurpation of our rights, invariably evinces a design to reduce us to absolute despotism, it is not only our right, but our duty, to throw off such government. It's called self-defense and liberals don't get it.
Liberals simply don't understand self defense. Period. Take VP Biden's latest gaff where he truly demonstrated both his ignorance. Saying we don't "need" "assault weapons," and we should "buy a shotgun" is both dumb and dangerous. Biden argued that double-barreled shotguns are easier to use than modern sporting rifles like the AR15, which they aren't. He then went on to recommend, when you suspect a dangerous situation, you should simply walk outside and fire a couple of shotgun blasts into the night. Not only is he recommending criminally negligent actions his recommendations violate fundamental firearm safety.
If you are dumb enough to follow Biden's recommendation you are screwed. You are now standing outside, with an unloaded shot gun that is slow to reload, slow to maneuver, and hot to the touch. If you actually hit what you weren't aiming at you may have murdered an innocent person and endangered your neighbors or bystanders. How would you explain to a jury that you didn't know what you were shooting at, or near, or what you were going to hit?
A double barreled shotgun is not suitable for self-defense; it is an antique technology barely more modern than a muzzle loader. Reloading with speed takes lots of practice, and room. Their break action, shell removal and replacement, is far more difficult than pressing a button and inserting a magazine. They are light and generally have a massive "kick" that makes them unsuitable for smaller people with less upper body strength. If there is more than 1 or 2 criminals, you are in real trouble. Considering most of the violent crime in the US is in cities, and associated with gangs, where a person is most likely to need self defense a large cumbersome 2 shot weapon that is slow to re-load is not a good choice for self defense.
The abject ignorance of leftists concerning self-protection and preservation is not just their absence of understanding the technology of self-defense, but their claimed expertise. It is sad what qualifies as an "expert" by liberals. Not just the continued mis-naming of automatic weapons, but the general mis-characterization of weapons in general. When the leftists in the press bring out people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about to most of gun toting redneck America, their invariable ignorance of firearms, is so blatant that one can only assume they are driven by emotions not facts. Considering the intelligence and knowledge they claim the only assumption that can be made is when a liberal is making such obvious "errors" in discussion on firearms they are doing so purposefully. Most of America calls that lying.
ABC covering up for Michelle Obama's gaff on saying teens had access to "automatic" pistols is just another example of the fact that either the left is totally ignorant or believes most of the people are stupid. In either case it's a lie.
Obama's desire to fundamentally change America can be summed up in the actions of his Secretary of State,John Kerry, who on foreign soil called Americans and American freedom "stupid." That is all you need to know about liberals attitude toward this nation, the Constitution, and the average American.
Liberals talking about firearms are lying. Period. The leaked internal Justice Department memo noted that the proposed assault weapons ban would have no effect on gun crime or gun violence. They know the truth, they want to confiscate guns because they fear an armed people. They think you're too ignorant and gullible to realize the truth. They are using emotions not reason, facts, or logic to attack the Second Amendment. Why, because it works. Just like they did in New Orleans after Katrina, the government will come and take your weapons. They think you'll willingly give them up, I think they are wrong. Just like for self defense AR15's not double barreled shotguns and semi-automatic pistols not antique revolvers, are the self-defense weapons of choice for most Americans; We the People are not stupid, and will not willingly give up our individual rights without a fight. If Washington DC does like the ruling elite tried to do in 1776, they too will start a war with the people that they cannot win.
As equality under the law, and the rule of law, are relegated to mere anachronisms of the past, We the People will abandon any compulsions, morals, or customs to obey the dictates of the ruling elite in Washington. Already the duly elected sheriff's of the country are pledging to the people, and the ruling elite in DC to not only not enforce further restrictions on the Second Amendment, but arrest federal agents who attempt to do so. We the People can and will simply ignore the dictates of DC. We do so concerning drugs, we do so concerning speed limits, we do so concerning seat belts, we do so concerning a huge variety of the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations and laws that the ruling elite dictate through unelected "regulators." The willful ignorance of the ruling elite may cause repercussions they can't fathom.
We've compromised enough, no more; the evidence can be seen in every sporting goods store in America, where the shelves are bare and AR15's and ammo fly off the shelf as soon fast as it can be shipped. Americans are arming themselves and will not give up those arms; Period! The government need not fear the armed citizen, unless of course they become too oppressive. Not all of America is the wussified liberals of the big city; much of America is fiercely independent and doesn't depend on government or want government to take care of us, we can and will do that for ourselves. We believe the job of government is to protect our rights, from those who would use force or fraud to infringe upon them. You see most Americans are truly libertarian, unwilling to use force against others but equally willing to use force in self defense.
In our history the turning point that changed a people trying to work with the ruling elite to get fair treatment from government into a war, our American Revolution, was when the government tried to take away and control the weapons of the people. Paul Revere's ride was not simply to warn that the "British are coming" but to warn that the government is here to take our weapons. All experience has shown that We the People are disposed to suffer the evils of oppressive government, while such evils are sufferable, than to right ourselves and abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when the government abuses and usurpation of our rights, invariably evinces a design to reduce us to absolute despotism, it is not only our right, but our duty, to throw off such government. It's called self-defense and liberals don't get it.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Clarity on Citizens Rights
By Tom Rhodes, 5/3/2012
"It is unclear how disarming law abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law." ~ Gov. Rick Scott, 2012
That was the response to the Mayor of Tampa’s request to have the Florida Governor to take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Tampa during the RNC convention this August. When faced with the actual evidence the fears expressed by Tampa Mayor and city council are completely irrational. Furthermore it is incumbent upon those who would restrict a fundamental right, ostensibly to make us all safer, to actually provide evidence that such restrictions of a constitutional right will in fact produce the increased safety they use to rationalize limiting liberty. There is no evidence that disarming licensed concealed weapons carriers will make anybody except criminals safer, however there is evidence to conclude that the increase in private gun ownership and number of armed citizens has resulted in increased safety.
Looking at the numbers since both the right to carry concealed arms in Florida was protected by law, and since the passing of the Stand Your Ground law in 2005, regardless of what anti-gun people want to say or claim, Florida is safer not more dangerous. Opponents can note that the number of justifiable homicides in Florida (excluding police shootings) has just about tripled since the law was passed. The average number of justifiable homicides between 2000 and 2004 was 12 while the average between 2006 and 2010 has increased to 35. Considering the size of our population, and the fact that now 6.5% of the Florida residents are licensed to carry concealed weapons the number is very low. Looking at that increase in justifiable homicides would be unjust and unfair and untrue without also noting that Florida's overall violent crime rate fell by 23% in the five years since the Stand Your Ground law was passed.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claims that Florida’ liberal concealed carry law is responsible for "year after year of carnage," that is quite simply a lie. If you look at the data you would find that since 1987, when the nondiscretionary carry license law was passed, Florida’s overall violent crime rate has been cut just about in half. In fact the evidence is clear; the crime rate of those people whom Florida has issued a license to carry a concealed weapon is far less than that of the general public and the violent crime rate related to firearms of those people is so minuscule it is virtually nonexistent.
Governor Scott’s response to the Tampa Mayor was not just political, it was logical. His response provided clarity based on facts and evidence; disarming law abiding citizens will not protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ~ John Adams, 1770
"It is unclear how disarming law abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law." ~ Gov. Rick Scott, 2012
That was the response to the Mayor of Tampa’s request to have the Florida Governor to take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Tampa during the RNC convention this August. When faced with the actual evidence the fears expressed by Tampa Mayor and city council are completely irrational. Furthermore it is incumbent upon those who would restrict a fundamental right, ostensibly to make us all safer, to actually provide evidence that such restrictions of a constitutional right will in fact produce the increased safety they use to rationalize limiting liberty. There is no evidence that disarming licensed concealed weapons carriers will make anybody except criminals safer, however there is evidence to conclude that the increase in private gun ownership and number of armed citizens has resulted in increased safety.
Looking at the numbers since both the right to carry concealed arms in Florida was protected by law, and since the passing of the Stand Your Ground law in 2005, regardless of what anti-gun people want to say or claim, Florida is safer not more dangerous. Opponents can note that the number of justifiable homicides in Florida (excluding police shootings) has just about tripled since the law was passed. The average number of justifiable homicides between 2000 and 2004 was 12 while the average between 2006 and 2010 has increased to 35. Considering the size of our population, and the fact that now 6.5% of the Florida residents are licensed to carry concealed weapons the number is very low. Looking at that increase in justifiable homicides would be unjust and unfair and untrue without also noting that Florida's overall violent crime rate fell by 23% in the five years since the Stand Your Ground law was passed.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claims that Florida’ liberal concealed carry law is responsible for "year after year of carnage," that is quite simply a lie. If you look at the data you would find that since 1987, when the nondiscretionary carry license law was passed, Florida’s overall violent crime rate has been cut just about in half. In fact the evidence is clear; the crime rate of those people whom Florida has issued a license to carry a concealed weapon is far less than that of the general public and the violent crime rate related to firearms of those people is so minuscule it is virtually nonexistent.
Governor Scott’s response to the Tampa Mayor was not just political, it was logical. His response provided clarity based on facts and evidence; disarming law abiding citizens will not protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ~ John Adams, 1770
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
US Constitution vs. Chicago
Eric Allie's cartoon sums up the upcoming Supreme Court case concerning Chicago's stance people having the means to protect themselves.
What part of "shall not be infringe", doesn't Chicago get. SCOTUS case District of Columbia v. Heller, where the desenting opinion of Justice Breyer states:
What part of "shall not be infringe", doesn't Chicago get. SCOTUS case District of Columbia v. Heller, where the desenting opinion of Justice Breyer states:
I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an "individual" right -i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Gun Registration
Currently in the house there is a bill, H.R.45. Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which if it becomese law would require every gun owner it the USA to register all their firearms, and would allow the government to deny you the right to purchase a firearm without due process.
History has shown that registration of firearms leads to gun confiscation, both in the USA and abroad. It's happened again in Canada where the CBC News has reported that Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms from registered owners in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns on the city's streets.
Most of the confiscations were due to paperwork errors, or guns not stored in a manor that suited the government. Guns kept in residents homes where they were readily available for self defense were confiscated.
When a gun hater tells you they just want to be able to track guns used in crime, or that registration won't lead to confiscation, you know that they are either a liar, ignorant or both.
Lucky for us the current house bill has zero co-sponsors and will probably not get out of committee, but as citizens if we care about our liberty and freedom we must follow the words of Thomas Jefferson and "be ever vigilant".
History has shown that registration of firearms leads to gun confiscation, both in the USA and abroad. It's happened again in Canada where the CBC News has reported that Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms from registered owners in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns on the city's streets.
Most of the confiscations were due to paperwork errors, or guns not stored in a manor that suited the government. Guns kept in residents homes where they were readily available for self defense were confiscated.
When a gun hater tells you they just want to be able to track guns used in crime, or that registration won't lead to confiscation, you know that they are either a liar, ignorant or both.
Lucky for us the current house bill has zero co-sponsors and will probably not get out of committee, but as citizens if we care about our liberty and freedom we must follow the words of Thomas Jefferson and "be ever vigilant".
Friday, August 21, 2009
Is that an Assault Weapon?
Here are two common American Rifles.
Which is the Assault Weapon?
What's the difference in the two?
Click on the image of each rifle and you'll see descriptions of their features, type of ammunition they use, and a brief description of how they work.
In fact at each of the above sights you'll see a link for an exploded view that shows a drawing of all the parts and how they fit.
If you actually bother to go look at the sites for those two rifles you find that they are infact. the same rifle. The only difference is one has an American walnut wood stock, and the other has a plastic adjustable stock, they have the same sights, trigger, etc. The only difference is the handle. The exploded view for both rifles is exactly the same image.
The difference in the two is like the difference between an old VW Beetle, VW Thing, and VW Karmann Ghia. Except for the body they are all the same, same engine, same wheels, same steering, etc. All based on a little WWII car design.
The above two rifles the Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle are both based on the same WWII rifle design, re-chambered for a smaller less expensive ammo the .223. This is the same cartridge used in an AR15. The ammo is inexpensive because billions of rounds are made to support various military weapons as well. The Ranch Rifle is a civilian semi-auto version of the M14 military rifle used the early part of the Vietnam war.
There been a mild media frenzy about a man carrying an "assault rifle" to a political rally in Phoenix AZ. The difference between the gun he carried, miss-labeled as an Assault Weapon, and the two above is very very slight. All use the exact same ammo. All fire exactly one shot every time you pull the trigger. All are used for sporting purposes, like target shooting, hunting varmints and small game, or home/ranch protection. The is a civilian semi-auto version of the M16 military rifle used the late part of the Vietnam war.
The gun in question is not an assault weapon. It has what some might consider "scary" looks, but then comparing a AR15 to an assault rifle is like comparing Karmann Ghia to a Porsche 911.
Don't let the alphabet media's fear of private citizens exercising their rights allow you to accept their misinformation nor demonizing of a simple sporting rifle based on 50 year old technology.
Which is the Assault Weapon?
What's the difference in the two?
Click on the image of each rifle and you'll see descriptions of their features, type of ammunition they use, and a brief description of how they work.
In fact at each of the above sights you'll see a link for an exploded view that shows a drawing of all the parts and how they fit.
If you actually bother to go look at the sites for those two rifles you find that they are infact. the same rifle. The only difference is one has an American walnut wood stock, and the other has a plastic adjustable stock, they have the same sights, trigger, etc. The only difference is the handle. The exploded view for both rifles is exactly the same image.
The difference in the two is like the difference between an old VW Beetle, VW Thing, and VW Karmann Ghia. Except for the body they are all the same, same engine, same wheels, same steering, etc. All based on a little WWII car design.
The above two rifles the Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle are both based on the same WWII rifle design, re-chambered for a smaller less expensive ammo the .223. This is the same cartridge used in an AR15. The ammo is inexpensive because billions of rounds are made to support various military weapons as well. The Ranch Rifle is a civilian semi-auto version of the M14 military rifle used the early part of the Vietnam war.
There been a mild media frenzy about a man carrying an "assault rifle" to a political rally in Phoenix AZ. The difference between the gun he carried, miss-labeled as an Assault Weapon, and the two above is very very slight. All use the exact same ammo. All fire exactly one shot every time you pull the trigger. All are used for sporting purposes, like target shooting, hunting varmints and small game, or home/ranch protection. The is a civilian semi-auto version of the M16 military rifle used the late part of the Vietnam war.
The gun in question is not an assault weapon. It has what some might consider "scary" looks, but then comparing a AR15 to an assault rifle is like comparing Karmann Ghia to a Porsche 911.
Don't let the alphabet media's fear of private citizens exercising their rights allow you to accept their misinformation nor demonizing of a simple sporting rifle based on 50 year old technology.
Friday, July 31, 2009
2nd amendment made for muskets not modern guns
I’ve hard liberals say that the second amendment was from a different time and wasn’t meant for modern automatic weapons etc. That it should only protect people’s rights to own the kind of weapons they had in the Revolutionary War. Yada yada yada.
Well right now the NYC cops are trying to force a Brooklyn man to get a license for his revolutionary war flintlock rifle.
Seem when it comes right down too it they were even lying about allowing us to keep flintlocks. Even though there is an exception for antique weapons, NYC police are insisting he has to get a license. It will be fun to see how this one turns out.
Well right now the NYC cops are trying to force a Brooklyn man to get a license for his revolutionary war flintlock rifle.
Seem when it comes right down too it they were even lying about allowing us to keep flintlocks. Even though there is an exception for antique weapons, NYC police are insisting he has to get a license. It will be fun to see how this one turns out.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Similarities between 1930's Germany and the USA today
Similarities between 1930's Germany and the USA today
Let's start with H.R. 675. This House resolution Provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h675/show
The authorities granted by the bill:
To execute and serve warrants;
To make arrests without warrants;
To carry firearms;
To enforce federal laws enacted to protect persons or property;
To prevent breaches of the peace and suppress affrays or unlawful assemblies
Why does the DOD or some new Federal police force need the authority to execute warrants, make arrests and carry firearms? The FBI can already do that, and the Justice Department can prosecute federal crimes. I believe that the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act explicitly prohibits the Department of Defense from involvement in state and local law enforcement activities. So the whole reasoning behind HR675 just doesn't' make legal sense, and no where in any of the 28 powers authorized to congress is there a power to create a federal law enforcement agency. By the specific restrictions on the Federal Government in the 9th and 10th amendments tot he constitution the power to police is specifically restricted to the states or the people.
This sounds like Obama is trying to do exactly what he told us he'd do when running for office. Form a national police force that is not accountable to the people but accountable to Him, didn't Germany do that in the 1930's? If I remember my pre-PC history, I believe that Hitler did the same thing, it was called the Gestapo.
The first amendment to the US Constitution says that congress shall pass no laws infringing on the right of the people to peaceably assemble. So what is an unlawful assembly? Any assembly the government doesn't approve? This HR wants to prevent "unlawful assemblies", didn't Germany do that in the 1930's. Those laws were used to arrest those how tried to protest against the Nazi party.
Earlier in this blog I wrote about Democratic congress persons claiming that those who would actually hold elected officials accountable and publicly tell them they would vote them out of office if they vote raise taxes are Terrorists.. They are trying to use a revamped version of the Fairness Doctrine to shut down Talk Radio, and proposing other laws to shut down blogs, etc. to restrict what the press can and can't say or who can and can't say what. Didn't Germany do that in the 1930's.
There are several bills before congress that would require the registration of all firearms, didn't Germany do that in the 1930's.
Obviously because current police and military have taken an oath to protect the constitution and the people, and are held accountable if they execute unconstitutional orders, the Democrats in Washington want to create this federal police force.
Obviously the virtues independence and individual freedom are not those of the Democrats and power mongers in Washington. Government control seems to be the virtue they most want cherish.
Let's start with H.R. 675. This House resolution Provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h675/show
The authorities granted by the bill:
Why does the DOD or some new Federal police force need the authority to execute warrants, make arrests and carry firearms? The FBI can already do that, and the Justice Department can prosecute federal crimes. I believe that the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act explicitly prohibits the Department of Defense from involvement in state and local law enforcement activities. So the whole reasoning behind HR675 just doesn't' make legal sense, and no where in any of the 28 powers authorized to congress is there a power to create a federal law enforcement agency. By the specific restrictions on the Federal Government in the 9th and 10th amendments tot he constitution the power to police is specifically restricted to the states or the people.
This sounds like Obama is trying to do exactly what he told us he'd do when running for office. Form a national police force that is not accountable to the people but accountable to Him, didn't Germany do that in the 1930's? If I remember my pre-PC history, I believe that Hitler did the same thing, it was called the Gestapo.
The first amendment to the US Constitution says that congress shall pass no laws infringing on the right of the people to peaceably assemble. So what is an unlawful assembly? Any assembly the government doesn't approve? This HR wants to prevent "unlawful assemblies", didn't Germany do that in the 1930's. Those laws were used to arrest those how tried to protest against the Nazi party.
Earlier in this blog I wrote about Democratic congress persons claiming that those who would actually hold elected officials accountable and publicly tell them they would vote them out of office if they vote raise taxes are Terrorists.. They are trying to use a revamped version of the Fairness Doctrine to shut down Talk Radio, and proposing other laws to shut down blogs, etc. to restrict what the press can and can't say or who can and can't say what. Didn't Germany do that in the 1930's.
There are several bills before congress that would require the registration of all firearms, didn't Germany do that in the 1930's.
Obviously because current police and military have taken an oath to protect the constitution and the people, and are held accountable if they execute unconstitutional orders, the Democrats in Washington want to create this federal police force.
Obviously the virtues independence and individual freedom are not those of the Democrats and power mongers in Washington. Government control seems to be the virtue they most want cherish.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Gun Control = More Crime
Gun Control = More Crime
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. Do some research yourself and you will find that in general the stricter a country is on its citizens guns generally equates to those same citizens being subjected to higher rates of violent crime.
When you read some article that tells you that for public safety we need more gun control, and they show you a murder statistic, ask them about rapes, robberies, assaults, and other violent crime. They either won't know or say those numbers don't matter. They do. Virtually every place that has allowed citizens the right to carry weapons (concealed or open) has seen a reduction in violent crime. Virtually all mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" like schools. I see a correlation do you?
Let your congressmen and senators know that if they vote to further restrict your right to keep and bear arms that you will vote to replace them.
Over a decade ago Great Britain confiscated the guns of private citizens in the name of public safety. They even made it a crime to use a weapon in self defense. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
Here are the violent crime rates for top ten most violent industrialized nations (violent crime rate is measured as crimes per 100,000 residents).
Rate | |
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents. Do some research yourself and you will find that in general the stricter a country is on its citizens guns generally equates to those same citizens being subjected to higher rates of violent crime.
When you read some article that tells you that for public safety we need more gun control, and they show you a murder statistic, ask them about rapes, robberies, assaults, and other violent crime. They either won't know or say those numbers don't matter. They do. Virtually every place that has allowed citizens the right to carry weapons (concealed or open) has seen a reduction in violent crime. Virtually all mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" like schools. I see a correlation do you?
Let your congressmen and senators know that if they vote to further restrict your right to keep and bear arms that you will vote to replace them.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
HR2159 - Deprives you of your rights without Due Process
We have a very scary problem in Washington. If you don’t have a gun go buy one, NOW! In a very short time you may not be allowed to purchase a firearm.
HR2159 - GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.
The Summary says - `The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'
As seen in previous posts on this blog the Department of Homeland Security says that right-wing extremists are our greatest danger. They define that as “groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico”; who “are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education”; who are “antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority”.
This law will enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous." According to documents by DHS, dangerous right-wing extremists are people who are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.
What’s worse is you may not be able to fight the government if (when) they do deny you your second amendment right, because when you read the details of HR2159 you find that the AG can not only deny, an applicant the ability to purchase a firearm, but can deny showing the documentation and reasons for denial to the court based on “National Security”.
The government is trying to do away with silly notions like Innocent until proven guilty, due process, right to confront your accuser, etc. They are trying to find ways to do what they want and circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America.
It may be too late but don’t stand by and do nothing, contact your congressman and senator and let them know that you oppose HR2159, and any laws that deprive citizens of their civil liberties, especially those laws that deprive citizens of rights just because of their views.
HR2159 - GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.
The Summary says - `The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'
As seen in previous posts on this blog the Department of Homeland Security says that right-wing extremists are our greatest danger. They define that as “groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico”; who “are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education”; who are “antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority”.
This law will enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous." According to documents by DHS, dangerous right-wing extremists are people who are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.
What’s worse is you may not be able to fight the government if (when) they do deny you your second amendment right, because when you read the details of HR2159 you find that the AG can not only deny, an applicant the ability to purchase a firearm, but can deny showing the documentation and reasons for denial to the court based on “National Security”.
The government is trying to do away with silly notions like Innocent until proven guilty, due process, right to confront your accuser, etc. They are trying to find ways to do what they want and circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America.
It may be too late but don’t stand by and do nothing, contact your congressman and senator and let them know that you oppose HR2159, and any laws that deprive citizens of their civil liberties, especially those laws that deprive citizens of rights just because of their views.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Obama aims to make reloading ammo illegal
Just got this from Gun Owners of America.
Scarry problem, Obama using treaties etc, to circumvent legislature etc. to get limits on guns he can't get because of congress and supreme court. The ramifications on individual liberty are staggering.
| Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading -- Even BB guns could be on the chopping block Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Tuesday, April 21, 2009 Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who "wasn't going to take away our guns"? Well, guess what? Less than 100 days into his administration, he's never met a gun he didn't hate. A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn't have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn't keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners. It's called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work. First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the "illicit" manufacture of firearms, what does that mean? 1. "Illicit manufacturing" of firearms is defined as "assembly of firearms [or] ammunition... without a license...." Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit -- is clearly "illicit manufacturing." Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be "illicit manufacturing." And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of "illicit manufacturing." 2. "Firearm" has a similarly questionable definition. "[A]ny other weapon" is a "firearm," according to the treaty -- and the term "weapon" is nowhere defined. So, is a BB gun a "firearm"? Probably. A toy gun? Possibly. A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else. If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty: * Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting "necessary legislative or other measures" to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms. Remember that "illicit manufacturing" includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty -- just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases. * Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include "association or conspiracy" in connection with said offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership. * Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to "adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention" under a variety of circumstances. We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses "committed in its territory" in a very broad way. And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers. Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through "other means of peaceful settlement." Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner? * Microstamping. Article VI requires "appropriate markings" on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost. * Gun Registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a "reasonable time," that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database. ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm |
Scarry problem, Obama using treaties etc, to circumvent legislature etc. to get limits on guns he can't get because of congress and supreme court. The ramifications on individual liberty are staggering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
