SNL is Just Another Political Hack

Over the weekend one of SNL’s current political hacks er, I mean “comedians” came out with a stupid skit calling for more gun control. His comments were along the lines that as gun owners we weren’t going to be allowed to own 40 guns or have a gun that shoots more than 6 bullets. He goes on to say that if we can’t hit something with 6 bullets we don’t need a gun. Instead we should learn Karate or use our words.

Besides the fact that this hack is a piss poor comedian I am sure he has probably never fired a gun, never owned a gun and is not part of the gun owning or hunting communities. This is the kind of clown Hollywood believes we should be taking advice from?

Like most elitist liberals from Hollywood he probably lives in a gated estate and has paid and armed security that protects his stupid ass wherever he goes and he doesn’t actually have to worry about providing his own self defense. So he can continue to look down on all of us knuckle dragging gun owners because he has outsourced his personal protection.

In addition, as usual this is yet another attempt at elitist liberals in Hollywood trying to impose their will on freedom loving gun owners and attempting to “hide” it in very poor humor.

I have some of my own advice for our would be comedian…

If you think gun owners shouldn’t have 40 guns then come and get the other 39 we are no longer allowed to own in your world.

You might want to bring your karate up to a new level before you come.

Go ahead funny man. Come and get them.

Watch List = No Gun Rights… Again!

It is amazing to me how bad ideas in Washington never seem to die. They are like vampires, that instead of blood want to suck liberties and freedom away instead. They just keep coming back over and over again. You think you put a stake through the heart of one of these freedom robbing ideas, but nope, here it comes again! Here we are after another horrific terrorist act performed by Radical Islamic Jihadist and again the talk moves to gun control. I have of course written about this before.

However this time I wish to report that someone in the Huffington Post of all places actually has some semblance of the problem and what the NRA is against. Let’s see if the dimwits in the Democrat Party can understand THIS time around. I doubt it, but like a hopeful parent I keep hoping the morons will catch on, but they never do.

As pointed out in this Huffington Post article, it explains the issue with the NRA and these ever expanding black lists from government is the absolute lack of due process involved in getting on a list, finding out you are on it, and getting yourself off it if you are innocent.

It seems the government REALLY hates this whole 5th Amendment thing. It is just too hard for them to go out and present real evidence and hold a trial and all that other “hard stuff”. It is so much easier to just pass a law that says we can strip rights, property, freedom and liberty away with no trial because some government thug somewhere thinks it is a good idea to put you on some type of secret list.

Any Libertarian worth his or her salt hates these watch lists for multiple reasons, but as the article above states the NRA is correct on this issue. Lack of due process is completely unacceptable and it holds true in this case as well. You can’t start having secret government lists that strip people of rights!

Now having said that I wouldn’t start cheering these stupid lists even if due process was used. Why? Because ultimately it involves putting someone on a list that strips liberties away for something that someone MIGHT do down the road, but we aren’t really sure.

If someone has ALREADY broken laws and is ALREADY a terrorist who has ALREADY done acts of murder or terror then LOCK THEM UP! Don’t put them on some list! But wait, what about terrorists that are running around overseas right now. Unless they are American citizens they don’t get rights under our Constitution. If they are Americans AND terrorists then catch them like you would any criminal and prosecute them!

The whole concept of taking people’s freedom’s away because of things they haven’t but might do someday is a very dangerous precedent to start. Plus who gets to decide these definitions? What constitutes an actual terrorist? I know everyone has their vision of what a terrorist is, but I guarantee that government will have a different definition if you allow this and it will be one you won’t like or worse the definition will start getting bigger and bigger to include more people.

It is no accident that members of the NRA and gun rights enthusiasts get called “terrorist” every time they stand up to Congress when the scum bags are trying to infringe on our liberties again. These un-American ass hats know damn good and well that a whole lot of freedom and liberties are suddenly granted to the police, courts and government and taken away from private citizens if you can brand some person or group as a “terrorist”. That is like a government magic word for immediately suspending constitutional rights from a group of people.

So, if we let this go through even with “due process” in place what happens when the media and liberals everywhere are successful in branding NRA members as terrorist? Poof! There goes our rights and we help sell the bill that will allow it to happen.

You see as dangerous as it is to strip people’s rights and liberties away for things they might do someday it is even more dangerous when the government has amorphous ever changing definitions of what or who a “terrorist” is and what constitutes “acts of terror” that will justify this loss of liberty. You just have to know that whatever party is in control of the levers of power will try and brand their POLITICAL enemies as “terrorists” so they can immediately throw them on some list and strip away a ton of Constitutional liberties.

This whole “war on terror” and who is an actual terrorist is just giving people that don’t deserve our trust (government) way too much power and discretion with our liberties.

Therefore, I stand where I did before. NOT ONE MORE INCH when it comes to gun rights or for that matter giving the thugs more power under the guise of “keeping us safe” and the “war on terror”.

I will keep myself safe. I don’t need the government to do it for me. First, they suck at it. Second, I prefer to do these things myself so I know what I am getting. All I need from government is to stay away from anymore of my liberties. Just back off and leave me alone. There are millions of other Americans that think the same thing.

Molon Labe!

 

No Fly List Equals No 2nd Amendment

In his most recent tirade, Chairman Obama of the not so free United States called for… wait for it… more gun control in the wake of San Bernardino shootings. Yes, this guy just keeps getting more creative, innovative, predictable by the day!

His most current idea is anyone that is on the “no fly list” should be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights. The LA Times editorial board even thought this idea was terrible. Not exactly known for the libertarian centered views even these guys can spot a terrible idea when they see it.

However this is just the latest terrible idea relating to the never ending always expanding “war on terror”. Every time some lunatic anywhere in the world does a horrible act of terror politicians in America start talking about another Constitutional right that needs to be removed or watered down to “keep us safe”.

The (un)Patriot Act has almost completely gutted the 4th Amendment with secret courts that rubber stamp broad and sweeping open warrants that essentially allow the government to go on a fishing expedition whenever they want. This of course is secret from the person being investigated and has strict gag orders in place anywhere it is used, i.e. your bank, library, or anywhere else they wish to look.

The wonderful tool of Civil Asset Forfeiture allows the Federalies to swoop in and steal your property without ANY criminal conviction. The IRS can steal money from your home, business, bank accounts, etc. simply for suspecting you of a crime under this wonderful government boondoggle. Their favorite recent toy in the box is something called “structuring” where they say ANY series of deposits NOT $10,000 or above is an attempt by you to avoid reporting laws and hence you are doing something illegal.

Police can pull you over, search your vehicle and help themselves to your cash, jewelry and other valuables under the rule “it might have been used in a criminal endeavor” theory of law. Again, no criminal conviction or even charges required. In cases of Civil Asset Forfeiture you will almost never be charged with a crime and must hire expensive attorneys to get your property back. So even if you end up “winning” by getting your own property returned by the time you pay attorney and court fees you still lost.

Americans decided to fight back against some of this abuse and many people use strong data encryption for their phones, email to keep government snoops out of their business. Then along comes the FBI saying, wait for it… we need back doors in this software for, yes, you guessed it the never ending “war on terror”

The sad thing all of these have in common is an attempt to subvert your Constitutional rights at every turn. Once your Constitutional rights are gone don’t expect the government to just give them back. People need to be aware you are getting a bad deal if you think they will make you “safer” in exchange for just one more infringement.

Obama’s recent one on 2nd Amendment rights is just the latest and certainly not the last “discussions” we will have about this or that liberty all in the name of giving law enforcement the “tools” they need to protect us.

In case you haven’t noticed all the words and phrases they use in describing these infringements are poll tested, spin tested words to mislead you. Hopefully people are smarter than that, but given the amount of infringements to date and the never ending stream of new ideas for more I am not hopeful.

Wake up people, the hour grows very late for you to stop this abuse by government.

Guns and Doctors Shouldn’t Mix

The Bill of Rights, focus on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

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.

There is a considerable amount of discussion circulating over the Internet about the invasion of privacy from doctors and insurance companies asking patients about gun ownership. It is becoming a very politically charged issue. In some cases state laws prevent it (Florida) and in others nothing. There are medical organizations driving this anti-civil liberties agenda and finally some of it is coming from both doctors and/or insurance companies.

There are a number of articles floating around about how to handle the situation if a doctor asks you gun ownership. Many of them discuss “making a statement” or filing complaints and other such actions. I can appreciate the need to fight back, but I am not sure that is the best course of action here.

When I was in college I knew a gentleman that was about 20 years my senior and was coming back to finish his degree and get a graduate degree. By all accounts this guy would be considered a bit off. He was a conspiracy theorist to the nth degree. He would go on long diatribes about social security numbers, the Fed, black helicopters, and any other number of issues. He would go online forums and argue, debate fellow students, write letters, put letters to the editor in the paper and many other activist activities.

Today I have no idea where he lives or what he is doing or even if he is still alive for that matter. What I do know is all the same things he rallied against back then are still issues today. If you believe in or don’t believe in these things is not what is tangent to this post.

One thing I repeatedly pointed out to him was the potential issue to himself from deliberately bringing down a larger and better funded enemy down on his head. I refer of course to the number of bureaucrats, ABC government officials and their countless databases and record keeping systems. I used to offer a metaphor/parable to him. I said if you are walking across your wooden deck with your bare feet and you come across nails poking up a little what are you likely to do? My rhetorical question/answer was you would take a hammer to the offending nail. The nails that would NOT receive a hammer blow were the ones that stayed low and didn’t bring attention to themselves by poking up.

I felt this was a good parable for life when dealing with our oppressive government of today at all levels. If you yell and scream all the time you will bring a lot of unwanted attention to yourself and when the hammer comes out (and it always does at some point) you will be the first one to get pounded down. While I can appreciate and even participate in activist activities you have to know how and when to do it. You have to be smart about it.

In my opinion arguing with your doctor, filing complaints against them or the insurance company, taking to social media to protest, refusing to answer on the grounds that it is none of their business etc. just makes you that proverbial nail poking up on the deck. If you say you refuse to answer because it makes you uncomfortable or you refuse to answer you might as well as just say “yes” because you already did. It will be noted in their file and anyone with half a brain will guess you have guns and are refusing to answer because you are one of those crazy NRA guys. If you take it farther by writing letters, complaints, etc. you simply raise your profile even more.

Let me offer what I believe to be the absolute best solution. I am at the doctor and they are going through their little questionnaire and hit the question of do I own guns. Here is my elaborate well planned, perfectly executed battle strategy for just such a situation… “no” next question.

Yep, that is it. Simply say no with a straight face and move on. In case it isn’t super clear I am telling you to LIE to them. It is none of their business anyway so I feel no moral compunction to tell the truth. It won’t impact the health services I receive in ANY way if they don’t know. I stay out of any databases and I my “objection” is also not noted anywhere. Nobody, but me and wall know the truth. Now doesn’t that sound like a much better solution?

With my solution I might not be an activist and I might be “rolling over to tyranny” and whatever else someone wants to accuse me of. You know what else I also am? Untracked, unrecorded, with no notation in my PERMANENT medical record as having any issues for or against guns. A record that is easily previewed by any number of Federal government bureaucrats. I don’t receive diminished healthcare services, don’t create an adversarial relationship with my doctor, insurance company and most importantly don’t become the proverbial nail poking up on the deck waiting for the hammer to fall.

If you disagree you are free to handle it any way you want. I know how I will handle it.

Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for “Radical” Americans

In the below video former General Wesley Clark calls for the creation of internment camps to segregate “radicalized” Americans from the rest of the population as we did in World War 2 with Japanese Americans. This is an interesting position from a man who had no shortage of criticisms for George W. Bush’s violations of civil liberties. Apparently protecting civil liberties is not really the mission here. Violating civil liberties is fine so long as it is your team doing the violating. Watch the video for yourself…

There are a few issues with his “ideas” of how to protect Americans. First, exactly who gets to decide who is “radical?” Today we might say it is radical Islamic terrorists, but as we have seen before people that believe in strong 2nd Amendment rights have been labeled “terrorists” on more than one occasion. Does that group get put into one of these camps? How about people that believe in any of the other Bill of Rights and is willing to fight for them. Are those individuals now “radicalized” and need to be put into a camp?

We actually have people out there that instead of having freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment that we should create categories of “hate” speech that is illegal and should be a crime. Wow. Who gets to decide what “hate” speech is? Is that just speech you disagree with?

So if someone says they don’t believe in LGBT lifestyle is that now hate speech and said person needs to be put into a camp for being “radicalized”. When we start deciding what speech is protected and what isn’t and are constantly pointing fingers at each other and saying this person or what they said is offending me and they are a “hate” speech person or “radical” for their idea we are in VERY dangerous waters. Add to that the idea that we should start shoving these people into camps and you have the all the makings of another holocaust.

Maybe those people that believe in a strong 4th Amendment and believe that having a warrant before being able to indiscriminately search someone’s house, computer, library records, phone, business records, car is a good idea. Are those people now “wrong thinking” people that are “radicalized?” Maybe they are hiding something, if they didn’t have something to hide they would just agree to the search, right? They must be a radical, maybe we should lock them up in a camp?

The issue is who gets to decide who is radicalized and a threat and needs to go into one of these camps? What is the process for deciding they have to go? Is it just their position on an issue? Will they have to show they are a danger to society? If so, how exactly does this new Minority Report commission convict someone of a crime they haven’t actually done yet, but may in the future?

If we decide to start shoving people into these camps do they have a trial? appeals? Is there a sentencing system or are they simply put in there until they are no longer “radicalized?” Who gets to decide when that has been achieved? What happens to them in this camp? Do they get re-educated or tortured until they have seen the light? What happens to their property they owned before they got shoved in this camp, doe we just divvy it up among the “non-radicalized” people living outside these camps?

See you start getting a lot of sticky questions when you decide it is a good idea to start labeling various people you disagree with as “radicalized” and “terrorist” and decide to start stripping them of civil liberties and locking them up for crimes they *might* do someday, but haven’t done today and quite frankly may never do.

Depending on exactly what “radicalized” group we are discussing here doing a crime isn’t what is happening so much as standing up for freedom. If their only crime is being “radicalized” according to some person’s definition of the word is then some star chamber of people somewhere get to determine that and shove them in a camp until this group starts thinking the right way? Wow. Just Wow, what else can you say about something like this.

The really scary thing is this clown is actually brought on to discuss this on news shows as it should actually be considered a real policy idea. This maniac should not be given a platform anywhere where his ideas are actually elevated to the level of serious discussion.

In addition, this moron was and may be again a presidential candidate. Finally, at one time he was actually a general in the military, you know, one of only two groups, police being the other one, that should have all the guns according to liberals. Now that should scare every single person.

Martin O’Malley Calls for New “Assault” Weapon Ban…Again

In the spirit of never letting a crisis go to waste Martin O’Malley is the latest flat earth gun control supporter calling for another “assault” weapon ban…again. How does that saying go it is like deja vu all over again. Apparently this clown doesn’t even read his own adoring paper the New York Times, which also admitted that the “assault” weapon ban enacted from 1994 to 2004 didn’t make any difference. Why? Because the vast amount of thugs killing people do NOT use modern sporting rifles, which 2nd Amendment hating, flat earth supporters, like O’Malley call “assault” weapons. The term is a completely and carefully poll tested word used by freedom hating POS like O’Malley to remove rights from us.

It is interesting that he is using the latest crisis in South Carolina to call for this ban. First, the shooting itself was NOT done with a modern sporting rifle. Not that this should make a difference, but it does show how these freedom hating thugs call for any and all types of gun control every time an event like this occurs. Second, the issue in South Carolina was more about mental illness than guns. If we fix the mental illness issue in this country people like this guy in South Carolina should be able to get the treatment he obviously needs.

2nd Amendment hating, anti freedom and anti civil liberties people like O’Malley will never understand the real issue and quite frankly don’t want to. They are more interested in striping freedom from private citizens than actually solving problems, which is what the entire gun control industry is based on.

The formula is always the same. First, wait for “crisis” that involves a gun. Second, don’t wait for the facts and start dancing in the blood of the victims and calling for “common sense” gun laws. Next, try and find a way to work in the words “assault” weapon into every news report the group does on national media, even if the perp uses a knife it becomes a conversation about “assault” weapons. Pull out a long wish list of gun ban laws that are always ready to go in their desk drawer and propose it as THE solution to THIS problem even though they are always the same tired ideas which have been pitched for years. Lastly when you don’t gain traction, blame it your lack of progress on the powerful “gun lobby” and NRA. Rinse and repeat.

In the case of O’Malley work a little fund raising in the issue as well. No point in not squeezing your supporters for a few bucks for your personal coffers at the same time. These guys will never understand we have 20,000 gun laws on the books right now. We don’t need any more “common sense” solutions, which only make it harder for private, law abiding, citizens to exercise their rights and won’t even slow a criminal down. But again, it isn’t about real solutions. It is about control.

The real solution to this latest shooting is two fold. First, fix the mental health system in this country. Of course that is hard and expensive and time consuming so it is easier to just call for some more “common sense”, but useless gun control law and call it a day. Second, eliminate the criminal protection zones like this church was. Gun free zones don’t work and never have. A thug bent on murder isn’t going to change his plans because you put your stupid little no guns sign up. It isn’t like garlic to a vampire, it doesn’t repel criminals. If you really want to stop mass shootings stop creating victim zones where law abiding citizens can’t carry and protect themselves and become prey for thugs like this guy. If anyone in that room besides the killer had a firearm they may have ended this before it became a mass shooting, but hey, let’s just propose another “common sense” gun control law because they always work; full sarcasm intended.

The bottom line is I don’t care how many politicians use the word “common sense” and talk about how this never happens in more enlightened countries like Australia. As a 2nd Amendment supporter I am not giving up one more right for a useless law that won’t solve a damn thing. Not one more inch.

Gun Control in U.S. because of Terrorists in France

As soon as I saw the news that terrorist had used guns to attack unarmed citizens in France I said to a friend, “just watch the anti 2nd Amendment crowd will find a way to call for gun control in the U.S. even though this happened across the ocean in France!” Sadly, but predictably, I was 100% accurate. It wasn’t even a day later that calls for yet more civil liberties infringements should be applied to U.S. citizens because of what happened in France! I repeat France!

Liam Neeson, despite making millions of dollars glorifying guns on the silver screen is one of the key people calling for more gun control in the U.S. because of this. I am not really even sure what to do with that information. The bottom line is you simply can’t fix stupid. You can’t negotiate with crazy.

First, like most western European countries France has some of the strictest ownership laws regarding firearms of anywhere in the world! Yes, the entire world. Even a bulk of their police don’t carry guns! Yet despite that terrorist were able to use the criminal networks and black market to smuggle guns into the country. Of course predictably they met almost no resistance as they proceeded to walk along killing unarmed and defenseless people.

Yes, to you idiots calling for more gun control this is what happens. You take away guns from all the people who follow the laws and then wonder why you have massive body counts when criminals steal or smuggle guns and kill all the unarmed people.

Mr. Neeson seems to think that because there are so many guns in the U.S. that attack would have been worse here than there with all of their gun control. That is so stupid it actually defies all rational thought and any semblance of logic!

How would 4 terrorist shoot any more guns than the ones they possessed in France? I have been a shooter for a long time and I have yet to figure out how to shoot multiple guns at the same exact time. Plus as pointed out before they used the black market to get these guns so if they wanted more they could have had them. Period.

What would have happened in most places in the U.S. is a CCW holder would have pulled out a gun and fired back! They may have even killed these guys before they murdered a dozen people! That is what happens in a country that has more guns and doesn’t disarm all of their subjects “citizens”. They shoot back. They are not soft targets.

I have come to the conclusion these people are simply too stupid to debate any longer. They can’t even use rational logic in forming an opinion. Their positions make zero sense. I suppose we must continue to answer them when they spout this garbage because we have equally stupid individuals in the media that actually think this drivel is newsworthy and that these flat earthers of the gun debate should be given serious consideration.

How do you intelligently debate someone that can’t even put together logical and debatable points? I imagine this is how early intelligent people felt when confronting morons who still believed the earth was flat. You made logical, fact based, statistically proven and well reasoned points and they would respond with “You are wrong, the world, she is flat!”. Like I said before you simply can’t fix stupid.

Should Restaurants be able to Ban Firearms

There is an interesting post and poll on the Personal Liberty blog asking the question if restaurants should be able to ban or restrict firearms on their premises.

I encourage everyone to go cast their own vote, but I thought I would share with you my perspective on the issue. The short answer is absolutely they should be able to ban firearms if they so choose. They should be able to post a sign and regardless of what state law says or what the 2nd Amendment says they should be able to ban firearms 100% at their establishments.

Those of you that have read my posts in the past know my own position on firearms. Therefore, I will wait the obligatory few minutes while you pick your collective jaws up off the floor if you are totally shocked about my position. Waiting… Waiting…

OK, everyone have their dental work back in place again? Good, let me elaborate. In a true libertarian society the right of private property must be sacrosanct. No negotiation on this point. However the rights of the individual need to be 100% respected as well. It would seem on this particular issue there is an impasse.

I disagree. As the property owner whose rights are sacrosanct they have the right to decide if someone is allowed in that facility with a firearm. However you as the individual whose rights must be respected also have a right to NOT go to that establishment and NOT spend your money there.

They are under no obligation to allow you entry with your firearm and you are under no obligation to come in. You as the individual are also allowed to boycott and make your displeasure known to whomever you would like. They as the property owners are also allowed to make their position known and defend it if they so choose.

In my state it is legal for any business to post no guns and as a CCW holder I am obligated to obey. If I choose to do business with one of these companies I do so according to their rules. However I also have the right to not do business with them and in my personal day to day life I do. I will not, on principle, go into any business that denies me my right to go in armed. Period. This is MY rule and MY right, which I choose to exercise.

Many times I will let the business know that I have or will take my business elsewhere if they choose to maintain this position. I am generally cordial and will ask them some questions as to why or how they came to the conclusion that this was a good idea. In some cases they don’t know why. In other cases they simply did not really think the issue through or have the facts to accurately assess the situation, i.e. that criminals don’t care if the stupid sign is up and only law abiding gun owners will obey those signs. Therefore, it doesn’t “protect” them from crime. If anything it keeps someone who could defend them from being present when a criminal does come in and ignores the sign.

However if at the end of the day they have an ideological position against guns and no matter what facts you present choose to ban guns on their property; in a libertarian society they should be allowed to. I also have the right to make certain choices, which I do.

Now for you people that are screaming you have a right to go here or there AND be armed I offer this. There are certain places in every city where the criminals rule. It is unsafe to go there under just about any circumstances, even if you are armed. You are of course free to go and be armed, but do you really want to? The point is being able to go absolutely anywhere you choose armed while it may be your individual right is it one you ALWAYS choose to exercise under ANY and ALL situations? I would offer no, there are some places that you CHOOSE to not go even if you can go armed.

This situation is not really that different. You are choosing to NOT go to a place because if you must go unarmed the place is fundamentally unsafe. If you were armed you might feel differently, but just like our crime ridden part of town you might not feel safe even if you were armed. The issue isn’t one of being armed or not armed it is about feeling safe under the circumstances. In a place that chooses to ban firearms I don’t feel safe because I know the facts about criminals. I choose to not go and feel unsafe. I am voting with my wallet and I am choosing to tell others about my position (boycotting) and letting them make their own decision.

Remember in a libertarian society your rights only extend to the point at which they infringe on another person’s rights. A private property owner has rights to. You may disagree with their position, but you can’t trample their rights to exercise yours. Simple as that.

D.C. Forced to Recognize Gun Rights

According to this story from the Washington Post, Washington D.C. City Council unanimously passed a law allowing individuals to carry concealed handguns for the first time in 40 years. Here is an excerpt from the story…

Members of the D.C. Council begrudgingly, but unanimously, voted for a bill that would allow individuals to carry the firearms if they meet a number of requirements.

The bold and italicized are mine. This single word is one of the key things wrong with government today. The right to bear arms is an individual right that we are born with. Government never was and never will be the arbiter of these rights. Their ONLY responsibility in this regard is to PROTECT that right from infringement, period. Look at the absolute audacity that they claim that they are ALLOWING someone to exercise a fundamental freedom!

ALLOWING, I really want that word to sink in. I want you to think long and hard about government ALLOWING you access to a fundamental, absolute, and natural right, but again, only under their terms and conditions!

The article goes on to state that they claim to be following the ruling by the court, but in reality are still stopping people from exercising this right. The law that ALLOWS people to exercise this right still let’s the police decide if you have a “good enough reason” to exercise this right. Everything about this is the exact opposite of what government should be doing. They don’t get to ALLOW you to exercise this right any more than they can decide if you are ALLOWED the right to free speech, free assembly, or freedom of the press!

Can you imagine if politicians or the police could shut off someone’s right of free speech because they don’t feel that the person requesting the permit has a good enough reason to exercise this right based on their own made up arbitrary standard?

The article goes to say that people who actually ARE ALLOWED to exercise this right by dictate of the police still must go through 16 hours of training. Again, can you imagine if you wanted to exercise your free speech or freedom to choose your own religion and the government not only got to decide if you had a “good enough reason” but also forced you to go through 16 hours of training first! Since when does the government get to dictate specific training people have to go through to exercise a fundamental right?

The article goes on to quote Marion Barry, City Council member and true lover of freedom and gun rights…

“I don’t believe in guns. I don’t believe in carrying guns,” said council member Marion Barry, Ward 8 Democrat and a former four-term mayor. “I think the public ought to understand that all of us here are doing something we really don’t want to do.”

Well, Mr. Barry, I don’t really give a flying f**k what you believe or that you are being forced to do something you don’t want to do!

First, what you believe or don’t believe has absolutely no bearing what so ever on my rights! Second, the government everyday, hands down laws, regulations and mandates that I don’t believe in and many other freedom loving Americans don’t believe in either, but we don’t get to decide if we are going to follow them! Maybe we should.

We don’t get to cast a vote among ourselves and decide if we are going to follow YOUR laws, but somehow you have the audacity to believe you have that right over other free people? You are truly a piece of work!

I know many in the shooting community view this as a victory and to some degree it is, but it is a far cry from where we should be. Perhaps Americans should start deciding what they believe in and picking and choosing which laws, regulations and mandates they will follow. After all what you believe is meaningless to me so I figure turn about is fair play.

Desperation to Start Gun Control Debate Falls Flat…Again

Recently I have read a number of articles where the anti-freedom gun haters of the world are trying to read tea leaves and even a scrap of data that shows they have a chance in hell of restarting the gun control debate. In addition, you can almost read the glee in this “journalist” as he talks about how Bill Gates has joined the fight for gun control with 1 million dollars, which is pocket change for the world’s richest man. He goes on to predict doom and gloom for the NRA now that Bill Gates has opened his pocket book.

Here are a few more pieces trying to show some correlation between a slowing down of gun sales and American’s desire for more gun control…

Americans are buying fewer guns says Smith & Wesson

Gun sales are plunging

All of these articles have one thing in common. They stink of desperation. In some they are trying to somehow suggest that because gun sales are slowing down from 2013 levels, which by the way was an all time high, that Americans are now in favor of gun control. Sure. Go ahead and try and bring that debate back up in Congress right now. I dare you. This issue is a political career killer and most gun control advocates know it.

What gun control advocates can’t seem to get through their very dense skulls is that no amount of money or decline in gun sales or anything else these morons see in the tea leaves is going to change the debate, Americans want freedom and many believe that comes from their ability to own a gun. Americans aren’t ready to hear your “common sense” solutions anymore now than they were 2 years ago.

Just look at Colorado as a perfect example. Bloomberg dumped millions into state races there and his candidates were crushed. Another state rep resigned rather than face a certain recall effort and Hickenlooper is fighting for his political life right now. Talk about a scorched earth campaign. They passed gun control and now they are paying a very dear price for their efforts.

Harry Reid is scared to death of bringing anything up that might further jeopardize his embattled Senators that will flip the Senate from Democrat to Republican control, which seems more certain by the day regardless of what he does or doesn’t do. Many of those Senators are already finished politically and they just don’t know it yet. Their fate was sealed when they voted with Obama to socialize healthcare in this country and the American people get to see and feel the pain of that failure everyday as they live under the tyranny of Obamacare.

Politicians, particularly liberals, socialists and Democrats need to give up once and for all this gun control debate. Accept for a few lunatic states on either of the coasts this issue is dead and if anyone doubts that just whisper the words gun control, er, pardon me, I mean “gun safety” laws at the national level and see how “ready” the American people are for your worthless, freedom robbing laws.

Bill Gates, Bloomberg, Steve Ballmer, etc. joining this debate with all their money isn’t going to change anything. Freedom haters can’t seem to grasp that you simply can’t buy people’s hearts and minds on this issue. It may be different if the apocalyptic world these people seem to think exists really did with blood in the streets and gun fights on every corner, but it isn’t. According to the FBI crime stats, violent crime has been dropping for 20 years, partly due to every state now having some form of CCW available.

When rare incidents occur like Newtown CT, it truly is horrific, but also extraordinarily rare and certainly not a trend of any kind. That is why gun control can’t get a foothold because guns are not the problem, never were. Having Bill Gates spend a bunch of money trying to tell everybody it is won’t work. Every time these fools attack our freedom and rights we will go into full fight mode and not give an inch, the way it should be.

Molon Labe!