Sen. Collins To Back Compromise on Gun Background Checks

Sen. Collins To Back Compromise on Gun Background Checks:

Sen. Susan Collins said on Saturday that she would support the bipartisan compromise reached on expanded background checks — the first Republican senator to say so publicly. “I do intend to support it,” the three-term Maine senator told NBC News. Collins said she reviewed the bipartisan compromise, announced on Wednesday by GOP Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and called it a “reasonable” approach. Under the deal, background checks would be expanded to gun shows and online sales.

"Compromise"?  There is no compromise to a Constitutional amendment!   It either IS, or it IS NOT!

I think I have not made clear my position vis a vis "Expanded Background Checks";

Essentially .. I am opposed to ANY bill which presupposes that the Senate (or the House,if they were empowered to propose a bill) might presents which in any way addresses the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

We are talking, here, about "Infringement".  Whether the proposed bill seems to address permissions or restrictions ... the Constitution is clear that it will not permit an "infringement".  That is .. implied, or imposed.

That the U.S. Senate would even imply that they may regulate our right to "keep and bear arms" is anathema .. even to the point where they might suggest that they will "allow" us a portion of the freedom which is already guaranteed by God and the Constitution.

You and I may experience a momentary lapse, in which we may accept an arbitrary ruling from Congress which says they will "allow" us to freely trade amongst ourselves ... as long as we meet their standards of "freely trade".

But that would be nothing less than a passive acceptance of their ability to restrict trade at their leisure .. or at their whim.

Think about it.

What if the senate passed a bill which stated that it was legal for us to state our (perfectly legal) convictions about any subject on the Internet.  If we accepted that, it would imply that they could as easily say that we could state our convictions .. but not on certain subjects, the nature of which would be determined at a future date..

The latter would be a violation of our First Amendment Rights; the former is a violation of our Second Amendment Rights.

Our congress has no more "right" to deny OR ACCEPT, legally, any part of our constitutional rights.

When we passively accept the one, then we passively accept the other.

Don't be passive; be pro-active.

Don't write, and certainly don't email (it's too easy to ignore) but PHONE your senator today.  Tell him/her that you are opposed to ANY bill which "infringes" on your Second Amendment Rights.

I'll go first!


Here is how to contact your U.S. Senator.


And .. here's a discussion about "Registration equals confiscation: even the Liberals accept the proposition!  (NOTE: this video loads very slowly; you may need to refresh it frequently, or tak other action to encourage it to have loaded it completely before viewing.)





"Registration equals Confiscation"  (See video at 2:30)

If you're really interested, here's a "Hannity vs Coulter"   discussion:



I won't expect you to pick this as your own personal "expression" of pro-gun hysteria.

Instead, I'll ask you only to choose whether you think anti-gun folks  have a more persuasive argument in reference to gun-control issues.

.. and, of course, whether we should listen to any argument which  contravenes the Second Amendment.

POINT:
If the leftists' could present a case against the second amendment, wouldn't they have presented it by now?  Ignore the BS that they have presented to date; clearly, they don't understand the issues.

If they understood the issues, they wouldn't be arguing against the Constitution (which, to them, is a dead issue, completely outdated, and should be ignored .. but they are NOT willing to present the issue to Congress and the states, which is the ONLY manner in which they can legally dismiss a constitutional amendment!)

Go figure!

Boston Marathon bombing kills 3, injures over 140

Boston Marathon bombing kills 3, injures over 140 | US National Headlines | Comcast:

 BOSTON (AP) — Two bombs exploded in the crowded streets near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, killing at least three people and injuring more than 140 in a bloody scene of shattered glass and severed limbs that raised alarms that terrorists might have struck again in the U.S. 

A White House official speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still unfolding said the attack was being treated as an act of terrorism. 

 President Barack Obama vowed that those responsible will "feel the full weight of justice." 

As many as two unexploded bombs were also found near the end of the 26.2-mile course as part of what appeared to be a well-coordinated attack, but they were safely disarmed, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation. 

The fiery twin blasts took place about 10 seconds and about 100 yards apart, knocking spectators and at least one runner off their feet, shattering windows and sending dense plumes of smoke rising over the street and through the fluttering national flags lining the route. Blood stained the pavement, and huge shards were missing from window panes as high as three stories.

In the wake of these terrible injuries and death, President Obama has been reluctant to label the attack an act of terrorism.

BREAKING NEWS:

“Any event with multiple explosive devices — as this appears to be — is clearly an act of terror, and will be approached as an act of terror,” the official told Reuters.

Clearly, it is an act of terrorism.  What other purpose can such attacks have?

But I believe I can understand the Presidential reluctance; in the 1996 bombing attack of the Atlanta Olympics, officials were too quick to blame a local man who was reported as having been seen loading a mysterious package in a trash bin; it turned out to be a harmless act by a maintenance worker.  We were too quick to jump to conclusions then, and it would be unwise to jump to conclusions about this day's tragedy.

BESIEGED:
We do seem to have more tragedies than we can keep up with lately, don't we?

Clearly, nobody can blame this on any lapse of awareness on the part of the president, his administration, or any branch of the government.  As we all know, explosive ordnance is highly restricted by law, and cannot be legally acquired without complete documentation including confirmation of identity and a permit to purchase explosive components.

We can only presume that explosives involved in these explosions were acquired out-of-country, and smuggled into America through our borders; an act which is also prohibited by law, so it's difficult to understand how it could have happened in any circumstances.  After all .. every act which must have performed is entirely contrary to the Rule of Law.

(The perpetrators, whomever they are, must have been mad.  Or exceedingly evil.  I'm pretty sure there is a law against that.  And if there is not an existing law prohibiting Evil Acts .. why now?  There should be one!)

OUTRAGEOUS:
As a native-born American, I am appalled by this sort of attack.  I would hope that the U.S. Senate would take such steps as seem necessary to curtail surreptitious importation of explosive devices from outside our borders.    We can only hope that our government would determine the source of the explosives used, and the means by which they smuggled explosives into our country.  We rely on our Government to protect us from attack, and cannot imagine how this can have been effected ... given the vigilant efforts of our border patrols to stop international incursions of persons and materials.

After all, the protection of our National Security is one of the primary Federal Requirements embodied in our Constitution.

I don't care what it takes, no effort is too extreme to protect our homeland from quasi-terrorist explosive attacks.  Whatever it takes to keep quasi-terrorists from importing devices of mass destruction into our borders;  if it saves just one child, is worth the effort. 

When I was in the army, we had a unit motto:

No mission too difficult, no sacrifice too great;

Duty First!

This is the motto of the First Infantry Division, and it has served our country well.

I'm sure that our leader, and our leadership, embrace the philosophy espoused there.  Our civilian leadership cannot aspire to greatness, if their determination might fail to meet the same level of responsibility as they require of our military.

New Shooter DQ's

I've noticed a disturbing trend over the past year, and that is:

I have been "DQ-ing"  (Match Disqualification) people who have attended the "Introduction to USPSA" class on their first match experience ... more than I have in previous years.

Are the shooters this year less competent in their gun-handling skills?  Have I become more "picky"?  Am I watching them closer?  Have I learned their weaknesses during the class, and learned to watch them more carefully?  Am I just getting old and cranky?

While I've been trying to find the answer in myself, perhaps the answer is some weird combination of "all of the above".

Shooter Incompetence?
The "safe gun-handling skills" required in IPSC type competition are far beyond the experiences of most shooters, for a lot of reasons.  Not least of these is that when they go to the range with their friends, there's an easy going, complaisant attitude toward gun safety.   In evidence to support that conjecture, I've seen TWO people DQ'd in the past year because they broke the basic rule of IPSC:  you do NOT handle your firearm unless at the safety table, or under the direct supervision of the Range Officer.

In both situations, the stage called for starting with the pistol placed on a table.  In both situations, the "next shooter" casually wandered up to the starting table, drew his pistol and placed it on the table .. while the RO was still involved with clearing the previous competitor.

These new shooters were in a semi-euphoric mood (evidenced by their laughing demeanor) and obviously didn't even think about what they were doing.  Nobody was downrange from them when they pulled the gun, and their lizard brain told them they were safe.

Both were embarrassed by the outcome, but neither of them had actually THOUGHT about what they were doing until they were DQ'd.  Both realized that they had violated safety rules ... after the fact had been pointed out to them.

I don't think it was actual INCOMPETENCE on their part.   It's just that, when they were at the range and shooting casually with friends, they thought nothing about handling firearms when there was nobody down-range of them.  In a very real way,  the experienced shooter has become habituated to the relaxed range rules of  'casual plinking'.  Even though they had been told the rules, and they had been enforced in training, it hadn't actually sunk in until they were DQ'd.  (Note that, generally speaking, both of the individuals involved had been taught in the class the rules of IPSC ... but this had not been emphasized;  the INTRO class syllabus has since been changed to include this specific issue.)

Have I become more "PICKY"? Am I watching them closer?  Have I learned their weaknesses during the class, and learned to watch them more carefully?

Yes, I have.

In a four hour class which sometimes involves more than a couple of students, it's difficult to immediately discern ALL of the 'bad habits' that people have picked up due to their prior experience.  As a consequence, I know what faults these people have demonstrated in class, and I am particularly watchful for any sign that they have fallen back to their old bad habits.

My experience has been that it is impossible for everyone to learn how to break their bad gun-handling habits from a single four-hour training experience.  The huge volume of information about protocol, procedures, learning the mantra of unsafe (DQ) actions, scoring, and a plethora of other "competition-related" subjects takes up a lot of the 60 minute time-span allotted to this complex subject.  In a large class, it often takes over 90 minutes.

The remaining (notional) three hour "Free Fire Exercise" is the real meat of the course of instruction.  It's not acceptable to cut down on the classroom segment of the class, because they NEED to know all the basic information.  The "Free Fire Exercise" where the students actually shoot, engage targets, and have an opportunity to show how well they can translate the instruction to actual experience ... is usually enough to find issues with each  student, and to address them.

But we're all only human, and sometimes in the week between the class and their first match ... old habits may sometimes overwhelm training.

Sometimes, the best training is to be told that you have failed to live up to the VERY exacting standards of IPSC Safety Rules;  the best thing you can to is to DQ a new shooter.  Having been DQ'd a few times myself, I can assure you that nothing so sensitizes a person to a particular safety rule than being kicked out of a match for its violation.

So .. yes, I am watching them very closely when I RO them during a match.

Trainer Skills Improvement:
I can say that, even though I've been a Certified Range Officer for over 20 years, nothing has sensitized ME more to watching for violation of safety rules, than watching new shooters during their first few matches.

Am I just getting old and cranky?
 Well, yes.  I am.  And I am becoming increasingly impatient with shooters who cannot manage to keep ALL the rules in the forefront of their minds.  They are running around with loaded guns, and I am very aware that in the class (and preceding documents which I have sent them via EMAIL before their class), I have told them:  "IPSC is safer than High-School Football!"

The reason for that assertion, of course, is that in IPSC competition there is always a Range Officer watching them closely to ensure that they compete safely .. it's not about scoring a goal for the home team.  It's about nobody getting hurt.

"Hurt Feelings" don't count.
The only one on the range who is possibly more disappointed when I DQ a new shooter .. is me.  I want them to do well, to be safe, and to enjoy the experience.  But if they can't handle all of the complex conjugations of competition vs safety, they are better off knowing that there is someone watching every move they make, every step they take, I am watching you.  (Okay, I stole that last part from a song.)

At the same time, when they go home to admit to their loved ones that they have been kicked out of an IPSC shooting match because they were unsafe ... there's an "UP" side to this.

The upside is ... nobody got hurt.  Nobody bled.  Nobody went to the hospital.  Nobody even got SCARED, because one shooter violated a safety rule without being called on it.  Usually, nobody else on the range that day even saw the safety violation .. except for the Range Officer.

That's his job .. to keep everybody else safe.

Every time I DQ someone, I'm disappointed.  I'm a Trainer.  I'm suppose to teach people better than that.

Well .. I do teach them, but it's impossible to know who is going to remember those lessons and incorporate them into their "Muscle Memory".  (How easy is it to learn to not handle your gun unless there is an RO there?  To keep your finger off the trigger if you're not engaging a target?  To not handle your gun unless there's an RO telling you to "Make Ready"?  To ALWAYS keep your firearm pointed safely down-range?  And a bunch of other rules that they have never before been required to follow?)

I'm sorely tempted to avoid squading with a new student in his or her first match.  I avoided that specific situation in the MARCH match, and there were NO Match Disqualifications on that day.  I was pleased to hear that, but I still wonder .. if I had been their Range Officer, would that have happened?

I think it would have; I had some excellent students during that period, and honestly I do not typically DQ new students at every match; in fact, it's an unusual occurrence when I DO have to DQ a new student.

The message I'm learning from this is that new shooters don't necessarily always find them selves overwhelmed in their first match.  Sometimes .. yes.  Sometimes .. no.

But when that happens, it pays to have an experienced, critical Range Officer watching to ensure that they are as safe as they think they are.  If they aren't, they are treated just like any other shooter: if they violate a safety rule, then their experienced responsible RO will (reluctantly) DQ them and get them off the range until their newly learned lesson sinks in.

Hopefully, I'm not going to be that RO.  But if I am, I can do that.  God knows I've done it before.

Hooray! I'm a MILLIONAIRE!

I just received an email from  the "Storage Officer" at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, Mr. John Munez.   He tells me that a box containing over five million dollars is waiting for me to claim it:

In view of your inability to receive your package with registration # UK8100AF from National UK Lottery London united kingdom,originally scheduled to be delivered to you by an agency, city express delivery (c.e.d). This package in a golden metal box valued $5,316,000 USD (five million three hundred and sixteen thousand dollars mistakenly arrived at Chicago O'Hare International Airport terminal 5 via British airways flight no.BA297 from Heathrow airport London sometime ago. The package with registration no, UK8100AF has been cleared by the USA customs and is 100% legitimate. The agency, attached to the airport, city express delivery (c.e.d) who delivered your package to your address have just return the package to our storage facility at the Chicago Airport, due to incomplete address.

Please reconfirm these information's;

 The letter goes on asking for my full name, Internet address, phone number, the airport nearest to my location, and my occupation.    It concludes:

Therefore, writing to inform you that the days of grace has elapsed and we shall begin to charge the daily storage fee of $25usd. Please call Golden Williams on (773) 455-7017 Extension 21 terminal 5 or  contact Email address: (chicagoairport92@yahoo.co.uk) to release this package directly to you.

Note that this notice serves as our last recovery notice to you as our department will be compelled to shortlist your package as an unclaimed consignment, and maybe forfeited.

Note: Delivery of your package from the airport to your residential address is free.

I thought that last part was a nice touch.  They're going to deliver my five million dollar gold box for free!

Full contact information was included, of course ... including a yahoo.co.uk email address (which was NOT the gmail.com address from which the email was sent).

(What, you think I don't look at the header details?)

Now, I sure don't want to miss my chance to pick up an easy five mill ... and take advantage of that tasty "Free Delivery" offer!   But I'm a little uncomfortable replying to either email address, or calling any of the phone numbers which were included in the contact information.   So I did what I always do.

I reported it to the FBI.

There's a division of the Feebies called IC3 (Internet Crime Complaint Center) which accepts reports of larcenous attempts to either phish us or otherwise separate us from our hard earned dollars.  I filled out a long report (online) with much of the information "Mr Munez" was hoping I would send him.  Let the FEDS call the phone numbers, reply to the various email addresses, and talk to the REAL "Storage Office" at Terminal 5, Extension 11, located at 10000 West O'Hare.

It was a very impressive letter, but there are still some telling characteristics which cast doubt on the authenticity of this letter:

• They didn't include my name
• There were grammatical errors in the letter ("Please reconfirm these information's;")
• The "yahoo.co.uk" email address doesn't seem a reasonable place to reply to the Chicago Airport
• No security arrangements were expressed nor implied .. to send me five million dollars?
• They were careful to mention that this box "has been cleared by the USA customs and is 100% legitimate"!
•  ????? !
• They needed my internet address (email), presumably because they sent this to so many people they couldn't be sure which one had self-identified as a greedy, larcenous sucker.

All of this ignores the most obvious twist.  I know I don't have any dead rich uncles in England who would have sent me a buncha boddle ina box of bullion.  (Sorry, couldn't resist the iteration.)   They know I know that.  This is a patent effort to encourage my participation in larceny.

In short, it's just another attempt to phish out my personal information.   It's Identity Theft.

I have to admit, it's a slick twist, from their point of view.  They don't ask for bank account or credit card information (although, it's a "first contact" ... and there is a mention of $25/day storage fees, which would probably be required from me 'before the item is released from storage').

And even if I balk at actually sending them money after step 2 or 3 or 4 in the scheme ... they might still have enough information to open bank or credit card accounts in my name.


In a quick search of the internet, I haven't been able to find reports of similar attempts.   But   if you receive an email like this, I encourage you (and tell your family and friends) that before they reply to ANY "out of the blue" emails, they might want to spend a minute and look at the FBI's "Looks Too Good To Be True" website.

If it looks too good to be true ... it probably isn't.

Sometimes you just have to appreciate how fast some athletic people are.

Sometimes you just have to appreciate how fast some athletic people are. [VIDEO]

I don't enjoy watching 'spectator sports', so I'm not a football fan.

And I graduated from Oregon State University, so obviously I'm not a great fan of the (University of Oregon) Ducks.

But I appreciate excellence in any endeavor.  Skill, talent, athletic ability ... I don't have them,  but I admire and love to watch those who do.

Sorry I can't provide the actual video here, so you'll just have to follow the link.

My understanding is that this video showcases a young UO football player named De'Anthony Thomas.

Excellence in motion.  I recommend the video.

It almost makes me want to watch football games, if such moments are often available.

Assault On Ammo - "Target Rich Environment" for Liberals?

Assault On Assault On Ammo - Connecticut Gun Control Bill - 2nd Amendment At Risk? - YouTube

(sic .. yes, that IS a direct quote on the original link.  I did not make make this up.)

This is a "Hannity" piece on the proposed Connecticut Gun Control Laws .. which would not only impose severe restriction on magazines, but also perhaps on ammunition.

First, watch the 9 minute video, which is youtube-dated April 2, 2013.





Okay, it kind of peters out after the first five minutes, but there are moments of glory for the Liberal Trans-nationalists among us. 


I draw your attention to two comments:

[Well .. three.  The video (at this moment, April 13,2013) included an ad asking yout to tell your senator to vote for "comprehensive background checks".  That may change in future viewings, although I don't expect it.]

The other two noteworthy comments: both by "Fox News Contributor Leslie Marshall".

First, at 1:50 into the video, Marshall says:

"... you know the second amendment does not address issues of taxation, registration, or ...anything regarding ammunition, and so this is within the boundaries."

At 6:51, in response to a question about why "... if they now go for ammunition, it's useless; there's no point", Marshall said:

"In my state .. California, Mike Thompson who is an avid hunter ... [cut explanatory verbiage]   ... said 'look, when you are hunting, you've got three rounds, you don't need and can't use 30 rounds'."

Okay, here are MY responses on these specific "Liberal Talking Points:

(1) UNRESTRICTED TAXATION ON AMMUNITION:

Here's the link:

Moynihan Asks Big Tax Increase On Ammunition

 (link opens in a new window)

New York Times, November 3, 1993:

 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said today that he would insist that President Clinton's health-care plan include a huge increase in Federal taxes on handgun ammunition that would make some especially destructive bullets unaffordable.
The New York Democrat has often contended that the best way to attack gun violence would be to restrict the sale of ammunition, not guns. Today, for instance, he noted that the nation has a 200-year supply of guns but only a 4-year supply of ammunition.
"Guns don't kill people; bullets do," he told the Senate as he introduced his legislation today. "It is time the Federal Government began taxing handgun ammunition used in crime out of existence."

I never liked Moynihan's politics, but you have to admit that the man had STYLE!  Such a damn shame this his Democratic leadership descended to Ted Kennedy.

Later in the article, find this quote:

Mr. Moynihan's proposal would raise the current 11 percent tax on the wholesale price of handgun ammunition to 50 percent in most cases. It would not raise the tax on .22-caliber ammunition typically used for target shooting.
But it would raise the tax to 10,000 percent on the Winchester 9-millimeter hollow-tipped Black Talon cartridge with a bullet advertised as expanding "to expose razor-sharp reinforced jacket petals."

 (emphasis added)

... and, near the bottom of the article:

The manufacturer would not disclose the wholesale price, but Cameron Hopkins, editor of Firearms Industry Magazine in San Diego, said a box of 20 Black Talon cartridges would typically wholesale for about $16, including the 11 percent tax, and retail for about $24.
The 10,000 percent tax would push the price of a box to almost $150,000. The tax would not apply to people in law enforcement or the military.
Mike Jordan, manager of marketing technical services for the Winchester Ammunition Division of the Olin Corporation, said, "I wish the Congress people would attack crime as zealously as they do guns and ammunition."

  (emphasis added)

I love this article!  I've used it before, and I'm eternally grateful to the "all the news that's fit to print" NYT, because they've kept it active for almost 20 years.

It's not just the context of Moynihan's bizarre tax-them-to-death that I like, though.  Right at the VERY bottom of the article, there's a disclaimer from the editorial staff of the NYT:

Correction: November 8, 1993, Monday An article on Thursday about a proposal to tax handgun ammunition misstated the cost of some particularly destructive bullets under the plan. A 10,000 percent tax (calculated on the wholesale cost) would push the price of a $24 box of 20 Black Talon cartridges to $1,500, not to $150,000.

 Isn't that just beautiful?

Unlike the pretentious phonies of both the NYT and the Democratic party, you and I can do the math.  We run out of fingers, though, so I figure it thusly:  10,000 is ten-to-the-fourth power, so if I take the original price of a box of 20 cartridges ($16) and add four zeroes, then the after-tax price is (16 x 10000 + 16) = 160000 + 16 = $160,016.

So The Old Grey lady is right ... the figure is not $150,000; but she is also wrong .. it is not $1500 for a box of 20 cartridges.   It's not an order of magnitude less than originally reported, it's a significant amount more.

Forgive me, I'm experiencing a schadenfreude moment here.  I love it when liberals can't do the math and prestigious liberal institutions perjure themselves trying to cover up for them;  it's merely one example of how these folks have so much contempt for the people who are going to have to pay for their posturing.

But I digress.

The point is:  if the Liberals would add $160,000 to the purchase price of a box of 20 bullets, purely as a punitive measure, is it such a great stretch of the imagination to suggest that this may not be an "infringement" upon the Second Amendment?

in·fringe

[in-frinj] , in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

verb (used with object)

1.

to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

verb (used without object)

2.

to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on  or upon  ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

(2):  "Look, when you are hunting ...":

Well, I have to admit that Leslie is absolutely correct.  When you're hunting, if you can't get meat with three rounds, you're better off patronizing your friendly local butcher shop because you are NOT a hunter.

And I think it as rather sweet of Our Founding Fathers to recognize that, even though we no longer NEED to hunt for our food, some of us like to do it for sport.

Oh, wait a bit ... I'm confusing the 18th Century (where manly men typically HAD to hunt for food, or raise their own) with the 21st Century (where metro-men  typically are vegans .. or eat fish, or chicken at worst, and they shop at their local discount foods store).

Maybe the Liberals are right: in an era when hunting is considered a "sport" rather than a "matter of living vs starving to death", maybe the Second Amendment IS passe'.

The funny thing is, I don't see any reference to 'hunting' in the Second Amendment.

However I DO see the words:

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.

Militia

mi·li·tia

[mi-lish-uh] 

noun

1.

a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2.

a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3.

all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government

and ....

Security

se·cu·ri·ty

[si-kyoor-i-tee] plural se·cu·ri·ties, adjective

noun

1.

freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety.

2.

freedom from care, anxiety, or doubt; well-founded confidence.

3.

something that secures or makes safe; protection; defense.

4.

freedom from financial cares or from want: The insurance policy gave the family security.

5.

precautions taken to guard against crime, attack, sabotage, espionage, etc.: The senator claimed security was lax and potential enemies know our plans.

Free State

SUMMARY:

I don't really mind spending an hour or two, from time to time, to parse the Second Amendment for the edification of politicians and talk-show "contributors".  But I wish that some of them would actually be among the people who READ this stuff.  Don't they have staffs who are willing and able .. and PAID ... to do this kind of research.

You know as well as I do that our Founding Fathers had a keen sense of the English Language.  They were very careful about the way they wrote our Constitution, and when it was signed, EVERY signatory among them knew exactly what they were signing .. and why.

Now we are something like 230 years later, and the people who propose to represent us have a lesser understanding of the Constitution .. and the English Language .. than we do.

I'm far beyond attributing their ignorance to stupidity.  Sometimes, you must take a deep breath and accept that these public figures .. often, but not always ... are merely duplicitous.  They are far too willing to use chicanery when logic will not serve their political purpose.  They have an agenda, they have a goal, and they will twist logic and history to suit THEIR ends.

Not ours.


They are advocates of government, which means CONTROL .. not freedom.

Gun control bill clears its first hurdle in Senate

Gun control bill clears its first hurdle in Senate | US National Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress' most serious gun-control effort in years cleared its first hurdle Thursday as the Senate pushed past conservatives' attempted blockade under the teary gaze of families of victims of December's Connecticut school shootings.

The bipartisan 68-31 vote rebuffed an effort to keep debate from even starting, giving an early victory — and perhaps political momentum — to President Barack Obama and his gun control allies. Four months after 20 first-graders and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown were killed, relatives watching the vote from a gallery overlooking the Senate floor dabbed at tears and clasped hands, some seeming to pray.

Even so, few supporters of the legislation are confident of victory. Several weeks of emotional, unpredictable Senate debate lie ahead, and a mix of gun-rights amendments, opposition from the National Rifle Association and skepticism from House Republican leaders leave big questions about what will emerge from Congress. Foes of the proposed new restrictions say they would penalize law-abiding citizens and do nothing to curb gun violence.

 "The hard work starts now," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who brought the legislation to the floor for debate.

 The United States Senate today proved themselves sensitive to the needs and desires of the American People.  Yes, the effect is essentially the same, but they promise that they will provide lubricant.

Here, according to the text of the report, are some of the particulars (no, I don't have text to support the news story):

BACKGROUND CHECKS:

The Senate's firearms bill would subject nearly all gun buyers to background checks, add muscle to federal laws barring illicit firearm sales and provide slightly more money for school safety measures.

"Nearly all" means that they will NOT require background  checks for private transfers (including sales?), which implies that "legacy firearms transfers" (my term, not theirs) between family members will not require a background check.

However, it 'specifically' (?) requires that gun show transactions include an NICS background check.  I have no problems with that, personally; if you're going to have checks for dealers in their store, you might as well have checks for dealers in "off-premises" venues.

Unknown so far is whether that is going to affect the guy who wanders into the gun show with an AR slung over his shoulder, and finds some non-dealer attendee who wants to buy it.  Are "Parking Lot Sales" going to be regulated?   IF so .. how, and why?  This is one of the "fiddly bits" which suggest that the actual bill is going to look a lot like the Obama Medical thingie;  convoluted, long, and with lots of stuff that's hidden in the text.  As an aside, I think that any bill which takes takes more than 20 minutes for a high-school graduate to read should be summarily dismissed without a vote.

ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES:

Excluded and facing near-certain defeat in upcoming votes were proposals to ban military-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — factors in the Newtown killings some [sic] other recent mass shootings. But keeping those provisions out of the current legislation did not mollify critics.

It would appear that results of the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" test/debacle actually reached the desks of some senators.  Which is to say, it didn't work then and it won't work now, so drop it!

CRAZY PEOPLE CONTROL:

Some potential amendments could broaden gun rights and weaken supporters' backing for the overall bill.
One proposal is by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Mark Begich, D-Alaska, who say it would improve how the federal background check system blocks weapons from going to people with certain mental problems, though critics say it would make it harder in some cases to do so. Another possible amendment would require states to recognize permits for carrying concealed weapons issued by other states.

Yes, I think that there are people who just should not have access to a firearm.  This includes all the people who think it's fun to shot up shopping malls, churches, movie theaters and schools.  I'm just not sure about the difference between "crazy" and "evil".

I'm aware that there are laws currently which prevent "permission" to sell to these people; I hear that the problem is with reporting.

I think the problem is with reporting, but not the way it has been presented.  I don't think it's so much that states get the information but aren't reporting it to the feds.   I DO think it's with defining the difference between crazy/evil people, and people who go to their "mental health provider" and piss him/her off.   The problem with reporting is "who will guard the guardians".  There are a lot of minimally qualified "Psychologists" out there whose credentials are .. can I say "IFFY"?   The folks who go into the head-shrinking business are usually caring, helpful professionals.  Or they are a bunch of libertards who think they know what's best for everyone.  Sometimes, the line between the two sub-groups overlaps.   It's kind of like the pediatricians who question the children they see, and ask them intrusive questions like: "Are there guns in daddy's closet?"

Agendas, that's the part that makes me shiver and quake.   I dread the day when some shrink arbitrarily decides that a patient is a danger and reports his patient to the feds, cancelling the patient's 2nd Amendment freedoms.  Before this is acceptable, there needs to be a LOT of references and referrals.  The U.S. Government is going to make this decision?  The psychologist may be right, or may be wrong.   The "If It Saves Just One Child" is the popular excuse for a plethora of societal ills.  How do you distinguish between a patient's "problems" and an examiner's "agenda"?

Again .... tons of verbiage in a federal bill, and a witch-hunt.

DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, AND "REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS"

In Thursday's vote, 50 Democrats and 2 Democratic-leaning independents were joined by 16 Republicans in voting to begin debate on the legislation. Twenty-nine Republicans and two Democrats facing re-election next year in GOP-leaning states voted "no" — Alaska's Begich and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

(and)

The Senate plans to debate an amendment Tuesday expanding background checks less broadly than the overall legislation would. Broadening the system to cover more transactions is the heart of the current effort on guns.
That amendment, a compromise between Sens. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., would subject buyers in commercial settings like gun shows and the Internet to the checks but exempt non-commercial transactions like sales between friends and relatives.
That accord, unveiled Wednesday, was designed to build bipartisan support for the legislation and seemed likely to do so. Toomey and Manchin are among the most conservative members of their parties and are both gun owners with NRA ratings of "A."

I don't have the list of Republican senators who supported this bill.  I intend to find out.  You should, too.  The flawed Republican Party is rife with politicians who are (a) honest in the historical sense that "when you buy them, they stay bought", and (b) Republicans In Name Only. There are overlaps, and if my contempt disrespect for professional politicians leaks through here, I am unrepentant.  However, one of the enduring planks in the Republican party is supposedly "respect for the Constitution";  this is one of the things that Obama cited in both of his presidential campaigns, and now we see how sincere HE was.

SUMMARY:

This bill is at the same time less than I had feared, and more than I had feared.  The obvious issues are whether this would become (1) a second attempt at an "Assault Weapons Ban", (2) "Background Checks on Legacy Transfers" and (3) the associated "Registration/Confiscation" issues..

The first seems to have been adroitly avoided.
The second seems to have been narrowly sidestepped.
The third ... is not even addressed.  Which, to my mind, bodes ill for honest firearms owners.


HOWEVER:

Any time the Federal Government involves itself with infringements of the Second Amendment, people start calling for compromises.  What that means is, legitimate firearms owners give up a part of their rights, and nobody else.  It's NOT going to stop the school shootings, it's NOT going to stop armed robberies, it's NOT going to stop crazy/stupid/evil people from acting crazy, and it is NOT going to recognize that Americans With Guns defend themselves, their families, and their homes millions of times every year.


Oh .. wait.  Maybe it's going to stop that last part.

Post office retreats on eliminating Saturday mail

Post office retreats on eliminating Saturday mail | US National Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The financially beleaguered Postal Service backpedaled on its plan to end Saturday mail delivery, conceding Wednesday that its gamble to compel congressional approval had failed. 

 With limited options for saving money, the governing board said the agency should reopen negotiations with unions to lower labor costs and consider raising mail prices. 

Yet the board also said it's not possible for the Postal Service to meet its goals for reduced spending without altering the delivery schedule. Delaying "responsible changes," the board said, only makes it more likely that the Postal Service "may become a burden" to taxpayers. 

Congressional reaction was mixed, mirroring differences that have stalled a needed postal overhaul for some time. Some lawmakers had urged the agency to forge ahead with its plan, while others had said it lacked the legal authority to do so. 

The Postal Service said in February that it planned to switch to five-day-a-week deliveries beginning in August for everything except packages as a way to hold down losses. 

That announcement was risky. The agency was asking Congress to drop from spending legislation the longtime ban on five-day-only delivery. 

Congress did not do that when it passed a spending measure last month.

 Still ... I have not received mail on a Saturday for ... years.  Is this a local phenomenon, or is the USPS mounting a subtle, "phantom protest"?

It doesn't really matter to me if they don't deliver Saturday mail to private residences.   Most of what I get is junk mail, and the rest is bills.  The local USPS installed a box on the corner of the cul-de-sac in which I live some years ago, so I have to walk all the way to the corner to pick up my mail!  Outrageous!  I may actually have to walk a few steps to check my mail!

And when I order bullets from Montana Gold?   * USPS doesn't put it in the "bulk mail" box ... they put a polite little pink slip in my letter box telling me to go pick up my parcel.  Well, it's 80+ pounds of lead and brass. 

Frankly, I don't blame them.  If I were the mail carrier, I wouldn't put an 80# box on my doorstop, either!

My solution?  I bought a hand-truck.

I figure, these guys are doing all they can to hold down costs.  If I can do my part to pick up the heavy stuff that *_I_* ordered (they give a good price on bulk shipping via USPS vs UPS), then it's my patriotic duty to trundle my hand-truck up to the window in my local post office.

When I can't manage a case of 2250 200-grain bullets from my car to my loading bench, I'm too feeble to shoot IPSC matches anyway.

Not an issue.
______________________________________________________
*
Update: April 11, 2013
Check the link in the body of the store, but as of this date Montana Gold Bullets is "OUT OF STOCK" on every single bullet which they typically sell.    Caliber, weight, configuration ... none of this matters.   They are apparently out of business until the raw materials become available to resume production.   "The Business of America is Business", as Calvin Coolidge is often misquoted, and due to purely political reasons, Business in America is Bad.

And by the way, I try not to include loading data here due to liability concerns.

Response to "The Hill" / 4-8-13

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/292265-report-sens-manchin-toomey-in-talks-to-expand-background-checks

(In "Comments")

The whole thing about "transfers within family" is disingenuous.  In order to determine that this is an "allowed transfer" (more on this later), the guv needs to identify both the doner and the donee, and confirm the filial relationship. You have just identified both parties to the transaction .. which (to date) had always been sacrosanct. 

Next, you need to identify the transferred firearm .. including serial number. Can you say "Database", children? (I knew you could!) 

So you have three points of transactional identification Donor, Donee, and SN. This will be propagated unto the Nth generation, which means that by REGISTERING this firearm, you have not only tagged yourself and your immediate descendant you have tagged your decedents descendants forever. 

This, my friend, is the ultimate "Firearms Registration" scam. They don't CALL it that .. because that would be just WRONG! But that's what it is.

Has anyone considered that this plan requires that the United States' Government essentially is position to ALLOW firearms transfer .. and thus, firearms possession?
"THEY" cannot do that .. unless we allow them to. The Second Amendment (I'm sure this may become a 'tedious' reference to some of you) specifically disallows "Infringement" of the right of the Citizen to "Keep and Bear Arms". "Infringement" doesn't mean "YOU CANNOT STOP IT ENTIRELY"; it means " YOU CAN"T NIP 'N' TUCK IT TO DEATH!" 

You may not dance around the edges of the thing, and disallow this little thing and that. No, we're not talking about Weapons of Mass Discussion (stet) here; we're talking about the small-arms typically allotted to the common infantryman, in defense of his nation against a Government Gone Wile. CF: Concord; CF: American Revolution.

Bottom line: My guns are .. my guns. I can give them to my kids, and the guv not only shouldn't stop the transfer, but should not be aware of it! Certainly, they should not regulate it!

Senators debate whether you can give your guns to your kids

Report: Sens. Manchin, Toomey in talks over background checks - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room:

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and his GOP colleague Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.) are working on language which would expand checks on firearm sales at gun shows and over the Internet.  

Their preliminary proposal, still in talks, would exclude gun sales between family members and temporary transfers for those with a hunting license, according to Senate aides close to negotiations, assuaging GOP concerns, the Post first reported Sunday night.

We're all waiting, wondering and worrying about whether and how the proposed "Gun-Control" laws would affect your ability to give your heritage firearms to your descendents.

The bottom line is ... control.

Think about it: The Federal Government is  deciding whether they will "let you" disperse your firearms.  They are now deciding whether they will "let you" give your firearms to your children, or other family members.

How are they going to do this?

Well, first, they need to identify the people who have firearms.
Then they need to identify the firearms.
Next, they need to identify your family.

See  a trend here?

Tracking.

In the "Best Case" scenario, "They" will "let you" transfer your firearms to "your family" without restriction.

In order to effect this oh-so-lenient permission, they need at least three data-points.  Maybe four.

1. They need to identify you;
2. They need to identify your family (and confirm the congruency);
3. They need t o identify the firearm
4. They need to confirm that you, and your family member, are legally allowed to possess the firearm.

Isn't that special?  They will LET YOU do what you have always been 'allowed' to do for 200 years, and the justification for this new record-keeping is that it will prevent ... what?

I don't know why they need to do this.  Well, from their point of view, it provides the government with a handy means to regulate firearms.  Not just the TRANSFER, but the POSSESSION.

Who here is going to go through all the (you imagine the scenario) hoops required for you to give your guns ... or leave them, in your will .. to your wife, your children, or your cousin?  What happens if you die intestate?  You didn't make specific provisions in your will for the disposition of your firearms?  Gee, what are these "Representatives" going to do to service your last wish?

Best case:   they will track your family for the rest of their lives, and your children's children as well.  Can you say "Big Brother"?

Anytime you find the Government "permitting" you to do something, you should immediately redefine that as "reserving the right to FORBIDDING you to do ... whatever.

The Feds, the State, your local municipality .. they have no business deciding/regulating/recording what you do with your personal firearms.  They have no "need to know".

Reject (refuse to complete) any governmental form which includes the serial number, description, origin or disposition of your personal arms.  

I would usually avoid the use of foul language (except under certain circumstances, usually involving "mass murder"), but today I will define at least two:

Vile Verb:  Registration
Vile Noun: Politician

These processes, and these people, do not mean to do you any service .. which is THEIR JOB!  You pay their salary, they are (supposedly) your servants.  They work for you, they have no mandate to tell you what to do.  Oppose them at your every opportunity.  Resist their oppression, ignore their illegal laws, and vote against any of them who support  illegal Gun Control.

Oh ...  all Gun Control Laws are not legal; especially the "hidden laws".

"Universal Background Checks" and "The Gun Show Loophole"

Republican Senator Makes The Conservative Case For Universal Background Checks | ThinkProgress:

At a town hall in Oklahoma on Monday, Sen. Tom Corbun (R-OK) made perhaps the best argument to convince conservative gun owners that they should support required background checks on every single gun purchase.

Taking the recent debate over gun regulations from the political to the personal, Coburn told constituents that universal checks are “the responsible way” for gun owners to ensure that they don’t sell their own guns to “someone you wouldn’t want to have it”: Those on that list will include felons and people with mental instability. 

A concern that gun owners are on that list or one separate to it was discounted by the senator, a fact that has been and continues to be checked on by his staff on a regular basis. “I’m for enhanced background checks because it’s a way for you to go online to make sure you’re not selling your gun to someone you wouldn’t want to have it,” said Coburn.  The responsible way is to check them against this [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] list and they don’t know that you did it.”

"They don't know that you did it."

I think this statement was intended to be reassuring to firearms owners who engage in private sales.  And I also think that it was disingenuous.

The cited article goes on to cite statistics:

Currently, private sales are exempt from background checks, and it’s estimated that 40 percent of firearm sales are completed without a check. According to Bloomberg News, “A 2004 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of inmates convicted of gun crimes found that 80 percent acquired the weapons through a private transfer.” Ninety-two percent of Americans want to change this grim statistic, and support a background check on all sales.

The statement .. and the position espoused .. assumes that private sales of firearms are typically between strangers.  In point of fact, the statement that "40% of firearms sales are completed without a check" ... includes not "sales" but "Transfers" which often do not include the exchange of money.

Which is to say, TRANSFER of firearms (which is the true scope of the proposal) includes a parent gifting a firearm to a relative.  That is a "guesstimate" of the statistic, not supported by actual data because these TRANSFERS are not included in data currently gathered by the Federal Government.

But if this becomes law ... it will be gathered, and retained by the Feds:  and they can use this information any way they want to, including as a guide which firearms they should confiscate "next".

The news reports do NOT provide the source of their statistics, perhaps because their sources are public statements by public officials, such as this Republican Senator from Oklahoma.  (Which is just one more reason why I consider myself a "Conservative" rather than a "Republican".)

Private transfer of firearms has historically NEVER been restricted by the Government at any level; only the public sales between dealers and the anonymous public.    This legislation is intended to put the Government between the provider and the recipient of ANY firearms transfer; it is not only intrusive in our private affairs, but it advances the proposition that the Government has the right to interfere in family matters; a position which is not supported by the Constitution.

Is it something in the water?  What has caused our current regimes (not government, but would-be Czars) to decide that they have a right to interfere with a gift or a will which allows a parent or grandparent to privately transfer their personal arms to their progeny?

That is the effect of the "Universal Background Check" laws which are being proposed.


Gun Show Loophole

Actually, this so-called "Gun Show Loophole" is the justification for the proposal.  And .. at least in Oregon .. it is entirely bogus.  Local sponsors of  "Gun Shows" have long ago decided that it is their responsibility to avail themselves of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) as part of any firearms transaction.    Do private individual conduct firearms transfers in the parking lot of gun shows?  Possibly .. even probably.  But this is not the normal profile of firearms transfers as Gun Shows, and in fact it is not the situation which we are most concerned about protecting from governmental intrusion.

This proposal is concerned that the Government be involved in ANY firearms transfer ... "if it saves just one child", as they so pompously state.  In truth, it is an unwarranted obtrusion on private family matters, and as such should be rejected out of hand.

The recent trend has been toward accepting the concept that only the Government (especially in its most all-intrusive definition .. the Federal Government) can properly protect us against the "Sale" of firearms to criminals, terrorists, and homicidal lunatics.

The NICS was originally proposed ONLY to regulate the common public sale of firearms between licensed dealers and the anonymous public;  and we accepted it, acknowledging that this was a 'stranger-to-stranger' transaction; it was "commerce", and vaguely justified by the long-abused "Interstate Commerce" provision in the Constitution.   We can live with that.

Obama's new proposals, however, have used that regulation to spring-board dramatically more intrusive governmental intervention.   Not satisfied with restrictions on "commerce", this new approach goes beyond the original "keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and lunatics" goal;  now they want to know who has guns, and where they go.

Yes, you read that right.  The NICS carefully avoided retention of firearms sales records;  all it wanted to do was to insure that the recipient was not legally prohibited from buying a firearm; after the sale was vetted, records were deleted in that the identification of the firearm, and that of the purchaser, was necessarily deleted after a certain (in terms of hours, perhaps days) period.

The ONLY way that the "Universal Background Check" system can function properly .. which is to say, the only way that enforcement is possible .. is that the name of the prior owner, and the name of the new owner .. and sufficient personal & demographic information to insure identification of the individuals involved .. will be recorded.  Also, it is necessary that the firearm serial number, and other specific description be recorded AND STORED so that subsequent transfers can be empowered to track the ownership of each individual firearm.

This is .. ipso facto ... Registration.  But because of the current state of national hysteria, our wanna-be Lords and Masters believe that they can slip the whole "Registration" thingie in under the radar.  We won't understand what they are doing, because if we were smart enough to understand they way governmental regulations are intended to undermine our basic rights .. we would probably be smart enough to avoid selling guns to crooks and terrorists in the first place.

Go back and re-read that last sentence.

Think about ObamaCare, which requires 2,000+ (unread) pages to define how we need to have the federal government involved in our health-care plans, because we're not smart enough to provide for our own physical health.

In the same way, the Feds are here saying (dismissively) that we are not smart enough .. or sufficiently concerned about our own welfare . to avoid selling crooks the instruments by which they may rob and murder us.

(The Soviet union had the same idea 20 years ago:  they thought we were so dumb that we would sell them the rope by which they intended to hang us.)

But it's a two-tier scenario.  While we're focusing on the details of the proposal, and worrying about line-item veto .... we're supposedly ignoring the basic premise of the thing:

We aren't able to run our own lives, so they're going to do it for me.  It's their job, and .. the more laws they pass, the more likely we are to believe that they (the President, the Senators, the Representatives and all of the other detritus of Politics) are working for our betterment.

It's insulting.

They're treating us as if we were children.

Oh!  [Dawns the light!]  They believe that we ARE incompetent to handle our affairs.  In their minds, of COURSE we require the gentle guidance of their elected parental hands.

And they wonder why we thing that the Second Amendment needs protecting from their usurpation of our Constructional Rights.

They need to go back, and re-read (or read for the first time, most likely) the Constitution;  And the Federalist Papers!

(What a bunch of Maroons!)

Great!

On a personal note ...
I just heard that my Sister's Daughter's Son's Wife gave birth yesterday to SON: Carter Arron ......

... which (if you have lost track of the generational implications) makes me a Great Grand-Uncle!

Mother and Son are doing well.  Father ... perhaps just a bit Sky-Hawked?  Can't blame him for feeling out-of-this-world.  I remember when my own first child was born.  I didn't know how to handle it.

Now I know how to handle the birth of a new GEEKSTER:

Gloat!

Life is GOOD!

Obama Gun-Control Backlash Continues

Beretta Leaves Maryland Because of Stricter Gun Laws:

New legislation is forcing gun manufacturing company Beretta to uproot and take their business elsewhere.
 Established in 1526, Beretta holds the distinction of being the oldest active firearms manufacturer in the world. The U.S. factory is located in Accokeek, Maryland, and has been a staple of the local economy for years.
 Beretta warned that stricter gun control laws would push the company outside of state lines, but that didn’t stop Maryland legislators. Jeffrey Reh, a spokesman for Beretta who also serves as the President of Stoeger Industries under Beretta, announced that the company would begrudgingly uproot and take its business elsewhere. He said, “We don’t want to do this, we’re not willing to do this, but obviously this legislation has caused us a serious level of concern within our company.”

Following the lead of other firearms-related business (see: HiViz Shooting Systems Leaving Colorado, Credits State Gun Laws, a link in my last blog article), Beretta has decided that they too are no longer are willing to add .. well, "$31 million in annual taxes" to the coffers of a state which denies firearms freedoms to its citizens.

Beretta is voting with its wallet.

Al Gore famously lost his bid to the Presidency of the United States of America in 2000 .. not even winning in his own home state of Tennessee ... because of his paranoid views of the right of individual Americans to responsibly possess firearms.   Since then, Politicians have carefully danced around the question of "Gun control" because they know that such a political stance would lose them elections.

It took a Lame Duck Socialist President to bring the subject up again, and individual Liberal states have been encouraged by his example to attempt imposition of draconian and nonsensical gun control laws at a state level.

This has backfired on them; publicly and dramatically.

The President has spent this nation into a debt-crisis which is akin to mini-states such as Greece, and Cyprus, and cannot reasonably afford to enact or even encourage such unpopular laws.  True to form, though, this President has decided that he can freely look only to the liberal mindset and ignore the wishes and preferences of Americans who are just as politically savvy, and much more likely to protest arbitrary lawmaking in a way which will hurt professional politicians worst; in the voting booth, and in the pocket.

The states which follow his example are now incurring the wrath of not only local voters, but also their tax base.

It's still far to early to determine whether the Liberals in this country are willing to listen to the protests of outraged conservative citizens.  (Probably not: agendas are the dreams stuff is made of!)  But one thing is sure:  the price for voting your prejudices has gone up, and will doubtless be felt in Colorado and Maryland.


Personally, I've never bought anything from either Hi-Viz or Beretta ... but I will, before I ever vote for another Liberal Democrat.

It's an easy choice to make, even without the tax protests.

Obama will NOW "...take away (our) guns!"

iGoogle

Obama Goes To Colorado To Advance Gun Control Movement

April 3, 2013

View and comment on NPR.org

President Obama is trying to regain some traction for federal gun control measures by visiting states that are moving forward on their own.On Wednesday, the president speaks in Colorado, where lawmakers recently passed a series of bills requiring background checks for all gun purchases and limiting the size of ammunition clips. Obama would like to see similar measures adopted nationwide. But if Colorado serves as an inspiration for the president, it also provides a cautionary tale. The Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo., has re-opened with a new name and a new supply of action flicks. But residents here haven't forgotten last summer's massacre, in which a gunman opened fire during a late-night screening of a Batman movie, killing 12 and wounding nearly 60 others. ... "This is our best chance in more than a decade to take common-sense steps that will save lives," he said at the White House last week.  Obama warned that even though polls show strong support for universal background checks and other gun control measures, they face powerful opposition from the gun lobby. [emphasis addedl some non-essential comments deleted] __________________________________ This, from the man who campaigned under the "We Will Not Take Away Your Guns" platform? When he ran in 2008, he specifically said "We're not going to take away your guns" .. almost dismissively, as if the issue were so obvious that anyone who as much as suggested that was his "hidden agenda" was a paranoid idiot. And some people didn't believe him.  Idiocy! Then when he ran again in 2012, he repeated his mantra:  "We're not going to take away your guns". And some people didn't believe him.  Madness! Now here it is, 2013, and President Obama is making definite "taking away our guns" noises ... and what?  Nobody cares?    We can't all be mad, although we might all be idiots.  After all, a majority of American Citizens DID elect this .. liar .. to the presidency.   Twice. Who's the idiot?  Remember the old adage?   "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." My friends called me a racist when I voted for the "ANYBODY BUT OBAMA" tickets, but of course I wasn't.  I was just a man who didn't believe the convicted liar (well, he's a politician .. they're all liars)  when he said:   We're not going to take away your guns! Guess what?  It's April of 2013, and Obama is going to take away our guns.  He has a lot of backup ... look at the Liars (sorry ... "Politicians") in Colorado.  See what they're doing?  I haven't had the  nerve to look at the Oregon Bill 3200 lately; I'm afraid that my elected liars are just as  egregious as that guy we elected to sit in the White House (Even though I never voted for him, and I never believed in Obama's "Dream" ... that doesn't mean he isn't My President.  It just means that I didn't campaign hard enough against him.  Well .. Romney ... was never a serious candidate:  I could have voted or campaigned for Ralph Nader, and the outcome would have been the same.) Still, it's a special disappointment when events confirm that the man who is the President of the greatest nation in The Free World openly reveals himself to be an unapologetic liar goes back on his campaign promises. Am I an idiot to believe in campaign promises? Are you? Oh, BTW ... firearms-related businesses are pulling out of Colorado as if there's no tomorrow, following the news that the  state is enacting draconian gun-control laws.  What are they going to do now .. pull out of the United States of America? No. They're probably going out of business.  Way to encourage the American Economy, Barry!   It's not as if you haven't undermined the American economy already .. but do you have to squelch the ONE business which has expanded since your   re-election? I speak, of course, of the drive by the Average American to acquire and horde firearms, ammunition, and ammunition reloading products (primers, powder and bullets are all but unavailable in the past several months) since the average American believes that YOU, personally, will make firearms purchases (and supporting products) illegal in the near future.  WHY is Middle-America going crazy for guns? We do so because you are going to make them illegal ... and in doing so, will make felons of millions of Americans who will NOT give up their guns. They think they're going to need them, in The Bad Times ahead. And they're right.  There ARE "Bad Times" ahead.