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!

 

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.