More on the Shooting in Arizona…

I’m in Arizona. Right now, my roommate is in Tucson. From every corner of the state everyone is losing their minds. A candlelight vigil just ended a short time ago at the Arizona State Capitol building; when I received an email alert from my conservative network, they specifically begged everyone to leave the political shirts, banners and other nonsense at home. Conservatives did exactly that. Guess who refused to leave their printed political slander behind?

The liberals. Those bastions of all that is good in this world have already made this out to be a crusade of conservatives against a Democrat. Sarah Palin’s PAC website has been held up by God only knows how many sources as the supposed cause of this tragedy. People are pointing out that a map on her website marked with a symbol described as “crosshairs” – a symbol which is actually a surveyor’s symbol, not a target or a bullseye – are supposedly calls for violence. Liberals whom I have long respected for their ability to have a civil debate and genuinely listen to those with whom they disagree are now pointing to screenshots of that map and claiming that it’s proof positive that conservatives are at fault for this.

First of all, Jared Lee Loughner (the shooter) posted often on FaceBook, MySpace and YouTube, and he was in dire need of a straightjacket and a Thorazine drip. He was likely a left-leaning nutcase who had obsessions with illiteracy and the Mayan prophecy about 2012. He believed that the government was engaging in mind-reading and mind control. He believed that the community college he was attending had somehow stripped all of the students of their Constitutional rights because of mind-control practices. He was a few fruit loops shy of a full bowl, and he started posting threats as far back as December 13 and 14…he said, “I don’t feel good. I’m ready to kill a police officers. I can say it.” The next day, he wrote, “Wow…I’m glad I didn’t kill myself. I’ll see you on national TV. This is a foreshadow..why doesn’t anyone talk to me?”

What happened was a tragedy on a level that is difficult to comprehend. Federal judge John Roll was killed, as was 9-year-old Christina Green. Also among the dead were at least three senior citizens and one of Giffords’ aides, Gabriel Zimmerman. Gabrielle Giffords herself was shot point-blank in the head; the bullet went all the way through her brain and exited through her forehead, and by the Grace of God she is alive and responding to doctors.

In all of this, the media has not talked once about how this incident ended. A private citizen, exercising his Second Amendment rights, fired at the shooter, hitting him; that person and one other then tackled Loughner. Why will you never hear about it? Because if you did, it would prove our long-held belief (one that has been proven many times over) that an armed citizen can stop a criminal in his tracks. How many more would have died if that man had not been armed at the store this morning?

What I cannot fathom, however, is how multiple media outlets – not the least of which is Keith Olbermann – are already laying the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of conservatives. Olbermann himself claimed that Republicans had “targets on their opponents’ faces”, when in reality that was NEVER done by Palin or her staff. Rather than mourning the loss of six innocent people without prejudice, they’re refusing to let a good crisis go to waste. They lost no time in laying this on our doorstep.

We’re not taking the blame for it. I’m not going to sit back and remain silent while liberals do their level best to make us out to be monsters. Shame on each and every one of you for turning this into a political circus. Shame on Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik for saying, “the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” Shame on every single person who has pointed the finger at Sarah Palin and her followers for somehow egging this tragedy on.

Shame on all of you.


The Right to Self Defense

Self defense is a concept that shouldn’t be in question. Every creature on the planet understands the need to defend oneself. Animals will use all manner of defense mechanisms to protect themselves, their homes and their young from any threat, whether real or perceived. In this day and age, however, it seems that there are a growing number of people who react emotionally to the subject of self defense rather than thinking about it rationally. Of course, when the emotions are in, the logic is out.

Such emotional reactionism has resulted in strict bans on weapons in countries all over the world. Most stringent are laws in England, Japan and Australia. In Australia it’s gotten so bad that even knives are banned. Scottish sword dancers, popular with tourists in that country, are required to have permits for their blades and keep them locked in safes when not being used for a show. Why? Violent crime has skyrocketed in those countries, and criminals not using guns still use inferior weapons such as knives, bats, chains and other items to aid them in victimizing a now-disarmed populace. Here in the United States, several cities and a couple of states had done their level best to head in that direction with gun bans. In 2008 the ruling from the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller determined that the District of Columbia could not ban handguns. The ruling stated that the Second Amendment extends to DC and all people have the right to carry handguns in self defense.

Today, the Supreme Court has handed down its ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Second Amendment applies to every individual in America, and local and state authorities can no longer enact such bans in defiance of the Constitution.

James Feldman was the lawyer sent to represent Chicago before the Court. He argued – quite weakly, might I add – that, “The right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill.”

Well, DUH!

Yes, Mr. Feldman, guns are designed to injure and kill. They have been used by hunters and soldiers for that very purpose since their inception. The problem with such technology is that once it’s created, it can’t be undone. The genie can’t be put back in the bottle. Guns are out there, and the bad guy will always do whatever they can to procure the tools they need to aid their quest to take whatever they can from whomever they find by whatever means necessary. That’s not paranoia, it’s mere reality. It happens every day. Far too many people in this world walk around believing that violent criminals can be reasoned with, much the same way they believe violent despots such as Saddam Hussein can be reasoned with. If we just give them a chance and sit down and talk they’ll see it our way, right? Well, I tell you what…you can try that all you want. I won’t have you forcing that to be MY only option.

What’s even more outrageous was what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms,” came the dissenting opinion. That reeks more than John Kerry’s “global litmus test” remarks in 2004. I’m sorry, Justice Ginsburg, but you are NOT in the business of applying our laws as defined by other nations. You are not appointed to the bench to hold our laws up against those of other governments to determine whether they’ll be popular. Your job, as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, is to interpret OUR law. Period. There is no other method to hold them to but our own. I am tired of hearing from politicians and judges in this country who think that we need to measure ourselves against everyone else. How can you expect us to care what every other “free” society rejects when their archaic laws have resulted in extremely high crime rates?

Sorry, hon. My give-a-damn’s busted.

More than being expected to agree with soft sentences for hardened criminals, I am infuriated that the liberal element in this country would dare to reduce me to a whimpering, whining dolt, forced to beg for my life from some uneducated thug whose sole purpose is to provide for his own pleasure. I beg for nothing. I sure as hell won’t beg for my life. As long as I am alive, I will use any means within my rights to defend myself, my home, and those I love in this world. If that means at some point I may have to actually unholster my sidearm, take aim, squeeze that trigger and put a bullet between the eyes of my attacker…well, I have two words for you:


The Brady Center’s Lies

It is astonishing just how liberals will twist just about anything to try to make a point that is completely wrong. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is no exception to that rule; during the most recent round of Second Amendment arguments before the Supreme Court, Brady Center has come out swinging. The slightest knowledge of the facts of some of the events that Brady Center has held up as reasons for stringent gun control – even outright bans – can give one astounding insight to the reality of these claims. Click here and you’ll see a document chronicling a list of “mass shootings” that Brady believes to be reasons to severely restrict Second Amendment rights.

One of the oldest mass shooting incidents on the list is the Pearl High School shooting in 1997. Luke Woodham stabbed his mother and went to school prominently displaying his rifle. He walked in and immediately killed his ex-girlfriend and her friend and wounded seven others before running out of ammunition. What Brady doesn’t tell you is how the incident ended: the principal chased Woodham out to the parking lot and retrieved his own .45 pistol and disarmed Woodham. Had that principal done that today, he’d have gone to jail for having a gun on a school campus. He was a hero, and if he’d had that weapon in the building the incident likely would have ended much more quickly.

Later that year, Michael Carneal walked into Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a group of classmates in a prayer circle, killing three and wounding one before being tackled by another student. What Brady doesn’t tell you is that the pistol, two rifles and two shotguns – and over 700 rounds of ammunition – were all stolen. Like Woodham, he was a minor and not allowed to buy or carry a gun.

In 1998, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden stole seven guns from Golden’s grandfather and packed the guns along with camping gear in Johnson’s mother’s minivan. The next morning they drove the van to Westside Middle School and pulled a fire alarm before running to a spot nearby where they had set up in camouflage. They killed five and wounded ten. They were minors and not allowed to have guns – they STOLE the weapons. In an added twist of cruelty Arkansas law didn’t provide for prosecuting children as adults in the case of murder. Consequently, Johnson was released from confinement in 2005, Golden in 2007. Since, Johnson has been re-arrested for associating with another felon and possession of a firearm (a 9mm pistol) by a prohibited person. The bad guys get guns no matter what the law says.

A few months later, Kip Kinkel was expelled for bringing a gun to Thurston High School at age 16. His father, despite Kip’s numerous legal problems, had decided that buying him a .22 Ruger rifle and a 9mm Glock would be a great idea. It wasn’t one of these weapons he was expelled for – a classmate stole a .32 Beretta pistol from the father of another classmate and offered to sell it to Kip, who paid $110 for it. His father had locked up his guns in a back bedroom. The next morning Kip broke into the gun locker and murdered his parents before going back to school and killing two and wounding 24. He was tackled by wounded classmate Jacob Ryker. Here’s what Brady doesn’t tell you about this one: Ryker had grown up with guns and knew from experience that Kip needed to reload.

Then, in 1999, came the most violent school shooting in American history, the one whose name would become a synonym for school shootings and revenge: Columbine. It was significant to me because I had friends in Littleton. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into their school, calmly placed a homemade bomb attached to a propane tank in the middle of the busy cafeteria, and waited. When the bomb didn’t go off their plans changed. They walked into the cafeteria again, shooting everyone they came across. In the end, 12 students and a teacher were dead and the shooters had committed suicide with another 23 seriously wounded. Here’s what Brady doesn’t tell you: the guns they used were all illegally obtained. Three of the guns were bought by Klebold’s legal-adult girlfriend, the fourth was bought from a third party who went to prison for some time for selling firearms to a minor.

The most egregious entry in Brady’s shooting list is the shooting of 6-year-old Kayla Rowland by a classmate in Michigan. Here’s why: the classmate, 7 years old, had a single mother, a father in prison and was living in his uncle’s crackhouse when he found a .38 caliber revolver – a stolen gun – hidden under a pile of blankets. He took it to school and shot Kayla after she got him in trouble. How, exactly, does THAT stand out as a shining example of the need for gun control? The uncle who had it stole it, and was a prohibited person to boot (hence the fact that he STOLE it). How does the Brady Center intend to coax drug-dealing criminals to stop stealing guns? Oh, I have the answer…a few more laws. That’ll do it. If we just had a few more laws, they wouldn’t be able to get their hands on all of those drugs, either.

Here’s another little factoid that Brady and other gun control advocates leave out: nearly all of the shootings on their list, from beginning to end, were perpetrated in so-called “gun free zones.”

Even in Germany, Switzerland, Finland and Sweden, where guns are almost entirely outlawed, mass shootings have still occurred in recent years. Great Britain, which has banned all civilian ownership of guns (to include hunting, a national pastime), has seen an exponential rise in gun violence. Why? Because the criminals don’t care about what the law says. If they cared, they wouldn’t be criminals! So, since the thugs didn’t care before the gun ban that violent assault and robbery were wrong, it stands to reason that now they see an even bigger opportunity: an entire nation of disarmed victims ripe for the picking. The numbers have proven this.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court overturned the Washington, DC handgun ban in 2008. While the politicians and gun control lobby wailed that the streets would become killing fields the exact opposite happened. The murder rate, in the six months in 2008 – 2009 after the decision, dropped an amazing 25%. I’ll be interested to see how much further it drops with a full year of armed, capable citizens being allowed to defend themselves.

Here’s a thought: if civilians were incapable of being responsible gun owners, reason says they should not be allowed to become police officers, either. Yet the police often cannot act until a crime has been committed. They try to do all they can to catch the bad guys before something serious happens, but until a man actually snaps and starts trying to harm and/or kill someone, he can’t simply be thrown in jail. There has to be a reason to put him there. I don’t care to be that reason.

What kind of a world do we live in when we can say, “oh, he was shot by an everyday mugger,” and move on as if it’s nothing?

The Reality of Guns in Mexico

I found this while taking flak from YouTube haters today (not just on my current vidblog, but on my gun ban vidblog as well), and I decided to post it. The testimony given by law enforcement officers is priceless. What’s astounding is that despite what the ATF and ICE heads said in Congressional hearings on the subject last year, you’ll hear Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Dianne “Here’s the Night Stalker Evidence” Feinstein (D-CA) openly rebuke the actual experts on the subject who directly contradict the numbers when it becomes apparent that new laws aren’t going to take care of the problem.

The Second Amendment: yet another American value that gay conservatives fight to defend.


Illinois and Guns: An Issue To Consider For 2010 Governor Races

As 2010 approaches, I run the risk of sounding reminiscent of the 1994 mid-term elections.

I was still a youngster during those days but remember the 2nd Amendment was a big deal. Also; of course, we are also in the midst of one of the worst economic periods in history where far too many state and local governments are tainted with wasteful spending policies.

There are three candidates that have gotten my attention. The first (probably like many of you) one I have been noticing has been Andy McKenna. He galloped in by referring to himself as an “outsider.” Then, along came Adam Andrzejewski claiming that McKenna headed the Republican party within our state (to which I still must back this up with sources), he’s calling himself the true “outsider.” Then comes Bill Brady — another conservative.

While all three promise major ethics reform within our state — which is a heartbeat away from California #2 on the economic no-no list, it seems that Adam Andrzejewski wants to cut the most from state spending sprees.

The three candidates on the issue of guns — according to an article from the Associated Press:

On the question: “Would you sign or veto legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault-style weapons in Illinois?”

McKenna: “I believe in the Second Amendment and law abiding citizen’s right to own firearms to protect their families and for sporting purposes.”

Andrzejewski: “Would veto a ban on semiautomatic ‘assault weapons’ in most circumstances. It comes down (to) law abiding citizens having the right to defend their life, liberty and property.”

Brady: “I am opposed to any further restrictions to the ownership of firearms as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and would veto legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic weapons.”

Here is where it changes:

On the question: “Would you sign or veto legislation allowing concealed-carry for handguns?”

McKenna: “I am opposed to concealed-carry legislation.”

Andrzejewski: “I would sign it. … Law abiding citizens have this right.”

Brady: “Constitutional rights should be afforded to eligible, law-abiding Illinois citizens, and therefore concealed carry should be legalized.”


For me, anyway. Sadly, he apparently has more money to run more commercials. Brady and Andrzejewski both gave the same answers, yet, to me Andrzejewski’s was more direct and obvious to him.

Just weeks ago in my neighboring small town — a lovely Hispanic business owner who owns a small-town hair salon had her business invaded. In the small shop, her three children were there who all worked small jobs for their mother. Her oldest was 23. The illegal gunmen entered the shop and demanded the money from the register. The 23-year old opened the drawer and gave them every cent they had — which came to about $100.00. They then demanded his cell phone and once he handed it to them, they shot him in the head tragically killing him almost instantly in front of his younger siblings before fleeing.

Just three nights ago, my brother’s car, in our very small rural town, was broken into. His glove box and armrest was ransacked for a few dollars in change….we immediately contacted a security company for an alarm system.

The point is, we should have the right to carry guns to protect ourselves. What if I had decided to get my haircut that night? I have been to this small town salon many times as my family runs a small accounting firm as well.

I want the right to protect myself and my home! If guns are only in the hands of the illegal folks, we may as well kiss our futures goodbye.

Take a look at Chicago’s murder rate. Mayor Daley for years has advocated strict gun control and he got it.

Every year though, gun violence and murders continue to rise.

The only way they will go down is when law-abiding citizens have the power to protect themselves.

We must push this issue hard for 2010. Talk to your neighbors and please, share your thoughts with me on this issue as well.

“Going Rogue” Book Reviews – Predictable, So Far

If I wind up finding one positive review of Sarah Palin’s massive-selling book, Going Rogue: An American Life, I might pass out.  The liberal reviews are great, nonetheless.

The first one worth mentioning is a review written by Patricia Williams of The Observer.  Past article-titles of such stellar unbiased reviewing include:

1.) My Family’s Debt to the Kennedys’ America

2.) Having Barack Obama as president doesn’t make America colour – blind

Ms. Williams is a professor at Columbia, so it’s not a surprise that she would attempt to give small-town folks the benefit of the doubt by stating: “America’s small towns are filled with vibrant, curious, diverse personalities” right before saying:

But Palin is committed to a romantic Disneyesque trope of “small town values,” a uniform, folksy fairyland where no one ever has to lock their doors or even disagrees.

That’s because; Ms. Williams, all of those small-town folks, including Ms. Palin believe in the second Amendment.  Therefore; leaving our doors unlocked is no trouble.

Just A Few More Laws…

The complete ignorance of many people–particularly liberals–when it comes to the subject of guns in the hands of civilians never ceases to amaze me. Tomorrow, a law recently passed here in Arizona allowing CCW holders (concealed carry weapons permit) to carry their concealed firearms into restaurants and bars will go into effect. But as I watched the news last night, I saw a not-so-shocking trend: reporters talking to a small but very vocal group of restauranteurs who are angry with the new law. Out of five local channels I watched, only ONE talked to a manager who didn’t have a problem with the law–ONLY ONE–and each and every one of those channels downplayed an important part of the law.

The law previously banned any and all firearms inside any establishment that served alcohol for on-premesis consumption (meaning all restaurants with liquor licenses and all bars). That part of Arizona gun law was changed, however, earlier this year. Ken Cheauvront, a Democrat lawmaker and restaurant owner, ardently opposed the bill to no avail. The argument is that alcohol and guns don’t mix. “People who are drinking shouldn’t be carrying guns,” they said. “We’re gonna see a huge spike in gun violence and deaths because of this!”

Here’s the kicker: the owners can put up signs that require guns be left in the car. AND, if you’re carrying into a bar, you can’t drink. That nullifies the alcohol-and-guns argument, doesn’t it?

Well, the opponents come back with, “even if I put up this sign, how do I know those CCW holders are going to leave their guns in their cars when they come in here?”

Oh, my. Tell me this, folks–how were you able to tell if someone was carrying a gun to begin with? The bad guys never obeyed the laws in the first place, and they’ll carry their gun anywhere they want. There’s a law banning handguns in New York City, yet I seem to remember a well-recognized NFL player recently getting some serious jail time not just for having one, but carrying it stuffed in his pants into a club, where he shot himself with it.

The CCW holders aren’t the ones to worry about. They’re the ones who will obey the law. They’ll leave their guns in the car if they see the sign, and if they’re carrying they won’t drink. What the hell are you whining about?

I also have to bring up this interesting little factoid. Chicago also has a law banning all handguns within the city’s limits. But did you know that school violence involving gangs and handguns killed 18 students in schools all over Chicago during the 2007-2008 school year? 27 total died in acts of violence carried out with various weapons. And last school year–the one that ended this past May–a whopping 37 were killed, including one who was carrying a gun that was illegal by two rival gang members who were adults.

They’re not supposed to have them, but they get them anyway. And it’s the law-abiding citizens who suffer.

I suppose if we just had a few more laws, though, the thugs wouldn’t be able to get their hands on all those drugs, either.

Leave Your Guns At Home!

I bet you can’t guess which one of the two main subjects in this photo is carrying two guns:

If you guessed the older, quirky-looking guy in the red hat, you’d be dead wrong. It’s the guy he’s speaking to–identified only as “Chris”–who raised eyebrows when he showed up, well-dressed, with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle slung over his right shoulder and a 9mm handgun strapped to his hip at President Obama’s visit to Phoenix yesterday.

Personally, I have no opinion on Obama coming to my city (at least not one that I’m willing to express). He’s going to come here. He’s the President. But when a few Second Amendment supporters showed up at the rally, the 300 or so pro-Obama supporters standing in their designated protest area just about went into conniptions.

This is a Presidential event! What if someone grabs that gun and mishandles it? It can go off and hurt the President! How can you be allowed to carry your guns in plain view when you’re outside a heavily-armed convention center while the President is speaking? CAN’T YOU LEAVE YOUR GUNS AT HOME?!?

Oh. My. God.

Aside from the fact that this group talked to Phoenix Police officers and told them several days prior to the event that they would be there with their weapons in accordance with Arizona law, they were in a designated public demonstration area. If you read the reports from the AP about these guys, there’s a single blurb about one Secret Service agent who was quoted as saying they weren’t worried about these guys. What you’ll see far more of are hysterical quotes from pro-Obama protesters, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and media shills who have never been fans of us conservatives exercising our Second Amendment rights. Now they have a new gripe: you can’t carry anywhere near a Presidential event!

I’m not afraid of those guys. How likely is it, do you think, that they’ll stroll into a public place, where the Secret Service isn’t going to let the President anywhere near, with guns in full view so they can kill someone? How likely is it that someone else is going to grab their guns and try to shoot someone else? How often have you heard of that sort of thing happening? The reality is that the vast majority of all gun deaths occur during the commission of a crime. The rest happen while someone handling the weapon stray from the most basic gun safety rules. The exact same facts can be applied to vehicular deaths, but nobody’s out trying to ban people from buying or driving cars.

And the Presidential thing? Really? If you’re gonna go there, I wanna see your outrage over THIS crap:




Thaaaaat’s right. Shut up.

Don’t Listen to Me…I’m Just a Right-Wing Extremist

I’ve been really busy lately and am now as sick as a dying dog (my friends would argue that it’s my refusal to take a break that’s to blame), but since the local pharmacist is going to take TWO HOURS to fill my prescription for codeine, I’m going to channel the body aches, the fever, the racking cough and the near-migraine into a blog. (I bet it’s nothing compared to Steve’s predicament–being a tax guy who just blitzed the end of tax season!)

So much has happened in the news this week that I’m not sure where to start, but it all ties in. I guess I’ll start where the madness began: the DHS report released on Monday, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. Unfortunately, I’m not kidding. They actually released this report. Our liberal readers will jump up and down and scream, “they released a report on left-wing radicals in January!!!” Here’s my beef: that report released earlier this year named specific groups, listed the aims of those groups and highlighted specific incidents (such as bombings, break-ins, flooding homes and threatening personal violence) and gave police reports as their sources. The report on “right-wing extremism” does no such thing. It’s very vague. And here’s how it starts off: “the economic downturn and the election of the first African American President present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” It claims that white supremacist groups are on the rise, and points out “opposition to abortion or immigration” as key indicators of right-wing extremism. Its sources? Not police reports…more like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has named the American Legion a “hate group” for opposing illegal immigration.

Go read it for yourself. Put down your drink before you do, or you’ll be choking on it. Trust me.

It’s no coincidence that the report was released just days before the massive Tax Day Tea Party protests across the country. It was no secret that this was coming, organizers started over a month ago planning this shindig. The Tea Parties were a throwback to the historic Boston tea party, when American colonists dumped shiploads of tea into Boston Harbor to stop the tea tax levied by the Crown without any say in the colonies. Today, we’re angry about being told that it’s our “patriotic duty” to pay more taxes (don’t give me any of that “it’s only the rich” BS, either, because ALL taxes will rise eventually thanks to the Democrats’ outrageous spending). Yesterday’s massive nationwide protests are the backlash that was inevitable, and all of those registered Republicans who couldn’t stand to plug their noses and vote for McCain showed up with people from all walks of life to send the message that we’re not interested in being taxed to death. The aforementioned report is the Democrat government’s version of a preemptive strike.

Not that they really needed it. The MSM did a remarkable hatchet job all on their own, no doubt in an effort to protect Barkey’s messiah-like aura. Anderson Cooper stooped to the level of sexual innuendo by calling them “teabagging” parties, fat bastard James Wolcott from Vanity Fair put his fingers in his ears like a two-year-old and said, “they didn’t appear on the front page of my newspapers, so I WON’T believe they happened!”, and CNN’s Susan Roesgen whined that it was offensive to call Obama a socialist (this after gushing over a paper-mache effigy of Bush with devil horns and a Hitler ‘stache as an “excellent lookalike”). The message? If we don’t agree with you, we’re going to do our level best to make you all look like the radicals that our Democrat DHS says you are!

Then, today, in an amazing, brazen act of hypocrisy, Obama went to Mexico and held hands with Felipe Calderon (well, not really, but what happened is just as nauseating as watching Bush hold hands with the same Saudi king that Obama bowed to not long ago), declaring–and I do quote–“how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across the border, is illegal. That’s something we can stop.”

This is where Philip goes, “oh, REALLY?”

I’d like to know exactly how Obama plans to do that. He not only refuses to secure the border, he also openly announces a brewing plan for amnesty–all the while accusing those of us who want the current laws enforced EXTREMISTS. How does he intend to pull off this heroic act? Send the National Guard to the border to seal it off with orders to let any “workers” coming North to pass by? How does he think the drugs are getting here? How ’bout we look at something that happened right here in Phoenix. In 1999, Phoenix police officer Marc Atkinson spotted a suspicious vehicle and pulled it over. The three men inside hid around a corner and ambushed Atkinson; an armed American citizen had the cojones to return fire in defense of the fallen officer and hold one suspect for officers responding to the scene. Today, that citizen would be labeled an extremist along with the rest of us.

But not only does Barkey swear to stop the flow of cash and guns South and the flow of drugs North, he yet again repeats the tired, debunked lie that 90% of all of the guns being used by the cartels come from the United States (I’m not gonna re-iterate my point, just read it here). The Arizona Repugnant repeats that lie and instead of “reporting” the story of Obama’s visit to Mexico, it gives a personal spin that makes it reek of a badly-placed editorial. So much for journalistic ethics.

What’s really funny is that in a related piece, the same freakin’ paper points out that a .50-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun was recovered in Mexico, mounted to a truck. Where’d it come from? Not the US, but you wouldn’t know that from the tacit omission by the writer who submitted the garbage for print.

If we can commit $350 million to stepped-up enforcement on guns and drugs on the border, then we can sure as hell start enforcing the immigration laws that our government has, so far, refused to enforce. Guess what? This human cost that you’re pointing out here, Barkey–THIS IS THE HUMAN COST OF IGNORING THE LAW AND GIVING A FREE PASS TO THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT. We don’t need reform. Our immigration laws are the way they are for a reason, and guest workers have the H2-A guest worker visa now to make themselves legal with. Stop bending over for the shamnesty crowd or you become the laughingstock you say your predecessor was.

But don’t listen to me. I’m just a right-wing extremist. I believe in the rule of law, liberty for all law-abiding citizens and LEGAL immigrants and small government that allows me to keep what I work hard to earn.

All the things that spell disaster, right?

Hmph…no pun intended.

The First Step

I got an email today from Longviewcyclist about something that I thought for sure was a fluke. The Blair Holt Firearms Act of 2009, also known as HR 45, is actually quite real despite my hope that it was just a bad joke. The Pennsylvania lawyer currently suing Presdient Obama for access to his birth certificate and name change records is currently touting the bill as Obama’s first effort to bring down the Second Amendment.

There’s just one problem with that statement: the bill was introduced to the House on January 6 of this year – BEFORE Obama took office.

Now, it was sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), but it was introduced during the Bush Administration. I have to wonder if House Republicans have any interest in stopping this bill; the NRA has yet to blow the whistle on this outrageous piece of legislation. I was able to find the exact information in the online Library of Congress, which includes the text of the bill.

Essentially, Blair Holt would require the licensing of any firearm that uses a clip and any concealable handgun. It doesn’t just stop there. The bill would require that you may only “transfer the ownership” (sell the gun) to another licensee (which would cost a fee to do – everything in this bill comes with a fee attached), and you’d have to get a “dealer tracking number” for the sale. It would also require that you report any change of address to the Attorney General. The bill also provides for tracking the production and sales for each licensed gun manufacturer. The fact that I am 100% against this bill is going to drive my liberal readers absolutely insane, and even some of those who agree will scratch their heads and go, “so what’s bad about this?”

I’m about to tell you.

In every country where guns are illegal for civilian ownership and use–Australia, Canada, and Great Britain among them–the bans now in place were preceded by this exact type of legislation. Ordinary citizens wishing to own firearms were required to obtain licenses and declare to their governments who they were, where they lived and what kind of guns they had. Then, when the government took the next step, which was confiscation, they knew where to go to get the guns from the law-abiding citizens. None of this answered the problem of criminals having guns, because the criminals didn’t obey the law in the first place (and they weren’t exactly lining up to turn in the guns they were never allowed to have). It STILL hasn’t answered the problem of thugs using all manner of other weapons to terrorize their now-defenseless victims. All any of this has done is give the bad guys a leg up in committing crime. Gun crimes may have decreased, but all other violent crime has gone sky-high. As I’ve said, criminals won’t try to victimize you if they see that you’re capable of putting up a hell of a fight. If they know you won’t have a gun it’ll only make it easier for them.

It scares me to realize that Blair Holt is not a bad joke, but a reality that the Democrats are trying to keep on the D.L. What scares me more is that more people aren’t speaking up about it despite there being evidence available to prove that it is, in fact, being discussed by our elected officials. I fear that it will take far less than four years for this legislation to be passed and signed by President Obama. Indeed, I think it will take fewer than two. With a Democrat majority in both the House and Senate, Blair Holt could pass in the quiet of the night before any of us realizes it’s been done.

Unbeknownst to us, the first step in dismantling our Second Amendment rights has already been taken.