How a Free Nation Becomes a Dictatorship

By now most people have heard of the 13 hour old fashioned filibuster by Rand Paul. If you don’t know you must be living under a proverbial rock. As predicted the vast majority of major news outlets totally ignored this monumental speech and they wonder why their ratings keep falling!

The news sources that did report it are misrepresenting the reason for it. Most reports are saying he was filibustering the appointment of John Brennan as head of the CIA, but that was simply the vehicle he used. Far more importantly he was fighting to insure that the President of the United States DID NOT claim the authority to use drones to execute American citizens on U.S. soil without a trial, charges, or any due process of law.

Many people who are NOT inclined to Liberty (Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham) and most of the Republican party not to mention almost the entire Democrat party thought this effort by Senator Paul was a waste of time and was a useless exercise of the filibuster. Morons! Of course leave it up to out touch politicians to not see the significance in these actions.

His speech was extremely important because it forced both the Attorney General and the President to issue a definitive “NO” they did not have this authority, which they would NOT do before. Many thought it was a silly to assume such a threat existed in the first place. Those fools obviously do not understand how a free nation deteriorates into a dictatorship…

Phase 1: Expanded Power

In the first step the government begins claiming unprecedented powers for itself that violate and ignore any semblance of The Constitution, or more importantly the Bill of Rights. We saw that occur with the so called “Patriot” Act, which stripped away much of the 4th Amendment and other valuable protections. Next, we saw the NDAA of 2011, which gave the government unprecedented powers to arrest, detain, and hold indefinitely, without charges or access to an attorney both American citizens on U.S. soil and non citizens alike.

In fact, it designated the entire U.S. as a battlefield, which gives the government a vast array of powers and options regarding the use of drones, CIA, and ultimately the military. We are told in each case that we “need” these powers to fight terrorism and terrorist, this despite the the majority of uses of the “Patriot” Act have been against non-terrorist. These powers didn’t come over night, many of them have been discussed for years before becoming law. They have been eased into place over time and usually pushed through Congress during a “crisis” manufactured or otherwise.

Phase 2: Expanded Police

Once the powers are in place you start ramping up your police forces and quickly militarizing them. We have seen many Federal and even local police forces being given fully automatic rifles, tanks, ballistic body armor, and many other tools that in the past were only reserved for military for use on foreign battlefields against foreign enemies. Not any longer. Now they are being used against U.S. Citizens on an ever increasing basis, but we are told it is OK, because they are just police and not military. Sure.

Phase 3: Disarm the People

This phase is also well on its way. You have a much harder time oppressing a people who can pick up a battle rifle and fight back like our ancestors did during the Revolutionary War that gave this nation birth. We see an unprecedented assault on the 2nd Amendment going on right now. We are told that people don’t “need” so called “assault” weapons or “high capacity” magazines for their firearms and we also need to “know who has these guns” so we need to register them. Not to take them away mind you, just to know where they are at. Sure. No registration scheme in the history of the world was put in force without the end game being confiscation. So it is this time. We are told “weapons of war” don’t belong on the streets. OK, why do the police have them and actually much more and correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe these are used “on the street” in every American city coast to coast.

Phase 4: Expand the “pool” of Terrorist

This phase takes the longest period of time to complete, but it is what brings the whole package of goodies together and finishes off the rapid disintegration of a free people into a dictatorship. As phases 1-3 were being rolled out there were many people who were attempting to bring attention to what was happening. Most were quickly branded as “extremist” and “on the fringe” of what the “American people” wanted. News sources would quickly belittle such people and their positions when they even bothered to cover their objections in the first place.

Then the truly terrifying steps start coming into focus. The government and their lap dogs in the media start taking the term “terrorist” and expand the definition so that it now includes people who believe in The Constitution, 2nd Amendment, Freedom, Liberty, or Patriots. So no longer are terrorist just the radicals overseas trying to blow up airplanes. Now they are also your friends, family and neighbors.

Of course this step is much harder to put in place then the steps above so it takes time and a constant drum beat of media telling us this is the case. The idea is to slowly “re-educate” people to believe this is true. We start to see this show up in cultural elements of society like TV shows work it in the writing and movies and other elements. Sometimes the messages are subtle sometimes they are blatant. Either way it is constant and continues in an almost mechanical fashion. Marching on and on. Many Americans are too stupid, asleep or interested in other important things like reality TV and the newest electronic toy to hit the market to notice this change.

Once the re-education step is finally effective and public opinion starts to change and people believe Constitution loving, 2nd Amendment advocates and others are now “terrorist” they begin the final phase…

Phase 5: The Final Solution

I deliberately chose the term “Final Solution” because this was the term Hitler gave to his “solution” of finally exterminating the Jews. It started by applying all these new laws designed to reign in the Jews and lead to them being wholly executed in concentration camps. So it will happen here in time. It will start by using these new found government powers and police to round up are newly created group of “terrorist” that many in the American public, now fully “re-educated” completely accept as “terrorist” because they have heard it so often and for so long and the so called “terrorist” who kept trying to tell them what was happening have been dismissed and called fringe believers. They were diminished. Eventually their humanity will be removed through this “re-education” process and that is when the extermination begins.

Of course they can’t fight back because their 2nd Amendment rights have long disappeared and they can’t fight back against a militarized police force with unlimited powers and a government, lap dog media, and now “re-educated” American people who believe this is all OK and the way things should be. Once some of currently asleep Americans start wake up it will be far too late. The freedom will be gone and government will now be an all powerful dictatorship with the absolute power of life and death over everyone.

This was what Rand Paul was speaking up against. This was what he was trying to halt. He understands where this is going. Idiots like McCain and Graham are trying to move us there as fast as possible and most Democrats won’t speak out against “their President” so they are simply useful idiots to the march towards tyranny.

This formula has been applied over and over in history. Russia under Stalin. China under Mao, Germany under Hitler and many other countless times throughout history. It always goes the same way and the end result is always the same. Brutality, executions, total absence of freedom, liberty or anything resembling a Bill of Rights. So those slumbering Americans who just heard “blah, blah, blah” as Rand Paul was speaking. You deserve what is coming. You want to right to vote, but not the responsibility of educating yourself and keeping your rights.

New “High Capacity” Magazine Ban Introduced

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced new legislation to ban nation wide the manufacture and sale of any firearm magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.  Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has introduced the companion bill in the House.  The reason these two morons have decided to introduce a separate bill is because at the moment their is no appetite for a full on “assault” weapon ban in either chamber of Congress right now.  Too many Democrats from Red States fear (and rightly so) the severe backlash they would get from voters if they decided to introduce meaningless bans that would not in any way prevent future Newtown shootings.

However like most liberals they figure if they can’t have the whole enchilada they will go for a bite of it.  They will just try to ram it down our throat in little pieces under the guise “this piece is just common sense, it isn’t like we are trying ban guns or anything”.  They will go on to say “nobody needs a 30 round magazine”.

I have even seen a couple of Democrats in safe districts come out and declare they are hunters and gun owners and would NEVER take anyone’s guns away, but then go on to say, “but reasonable people all agree there is no place in society for 30 round magazines and nobody needs a magazine capable of holding that many rounds”.  There is that word NEED again.

With all due respect, their premise is absolutely wrong on multiple levels.  First of all my needs or lack of is no business of the government.  I am a sovereign citizen who is responsible for my own actions and filling my own needs.  Is it not the roll of government to be determining anyone’s needs and trying to fill them.  It is governments job to get the hell out the way so people can fill their own needs.

Second my rights are not subject to the whims of what society thinks or agrees on.  To disagree means that if you can round up 51% of any group to declare that the other 49% of the group doesn’t have a right to this or that it is OK?  In Nazi Germany, the majority, for a while anyway, determined a world without Jews in it was acceptable so killing off an entire group of people was OK as long as the majority agreed with it!

Just because a group can round up 51% or even 95% of a group they still do NOT have the right to trample the rights of the minority.  We do not govern by mobs and that is exactly what this is.  A majority of the mob agrees that the minority is not deserving of this right or that so take it away.

All you liberals out there that think you have the wind at your back on this issue, just remember the scales always shift and eventually the pendulum will shift back where you don’t have 51% on your side for all of your issues.  So when they day comes, and it will, if we can round up 51% on our side to lock your stupid asses up in Gitmo forever because we think you are leftest terrorists is that OK?  If not, then you best be careful about trying to use your power now because you won’t always have it.

Rights are granted by your birth from God and cannot be stripped by ANY government regardless if they have 51% of the people on their side or not.  Government’s ONLY role here is simply to protect my rights, NOT grant them, NOT decide what I need, NOT what is appropriate and NOT what is common sense.

Finally, I did not break the law.  I did not misuse my guns or my gear.  I am a citizen of one and responsible for MY actions.  I am not responsible for the actions of others and I will NOT surrender MY freedom because someone else misused theirs.

Charlie Daniels on Gun Control

I came across an interesting article on song writer and singer Charlie Daniels position on gun control.  I found his piece well written, short, to the point, and extremely accurate on a key point regarding all this debate…. incremental-ism.

In other words Mr. Daniels points out rather accurately that anyone who believes ANY gun laws that are passed this time will be the last laws we see are very wrong.  Let’s face it the goal of liberals and anti-gun advocates is a TOTAL and complete ban on all types of firearms for private citizens.  With that goal in mind they will NEVER stop.

When they tell you they are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but… they are lying.  They are NOT for the 2nd Amendment.  They want total bans and they are willing to be patient and methodical in their approaches.  Even if it takes 20 years or 40 years, the slow steady march to a total ban is the only thing they will accept.

Need proof, no problem, we had comprehensive gun control legislation passed in 1968 and many times after.  Simple question, why do we need additional legislation if the first legislation that came up we were told was going to solve the problem?

The answer is of course that the left realizes they can’t grab all the guns at once.  Make no mistake that is the goal, but they realize they have to do it in little bity bites.  If they get their coveted AWB ban and high capacity magazine ban they will be back in a year or two with ANOTHER solution to another problem that just needs this one more piece of legislation and it will fix everything.  Until the next one and the one after that, etc.  It will never stop until all guns are ban from all private citizens.  Never forget that.

What do these phrases all have in common…

  1. I don’t want to take anyone’s guns away
  2. I believe in the second amendment
  3. This is not an assault on your freedom
  4. People should be allowed to own guns for…

Every one of these phrases are uttered by anti 2nd Amendment politicians and advocates just before they say what the next piece of gun control legislation should be.  Before they make the next violation of your rights.

This is about our God given right to liberty and self defense against not only criminals but tyrants.  Those tyrants are working overtime to remove your guns now, but remember it is for the children.  Right.

This is a call to ALL gun owners, not just those of you that own semi-auto rifles and only hunt or just own a handgun.  Stand up and fight with us.  Remember today they are coming for the [fill in the blank evil gun] but tomorrow it will be yours.

Molon Labe

David Gregory of NBC Meet the Press Won’t Face Charges

On December 23rd, 2012 David Gregory of NBC Meet the Press in an interview with Wayne LaPierre of the NRA waved around an empty 30 round magazine for a rifle and declared that if we just had less of these [indicating the magazine] we would have a lower death rate in mass killings by maniacs.

The problem was that his magazine was illegal in Washington D.C. and he did not have an exemption from the police to possess this magazine for his show.  However despite all of that he decided to flaunt the law and show it anyway because it fit his gun banning agenda.

We learn today that he will not face charges for this violation.  The article goes on to give a quote from the city AG office…

The city’s Office of the Attorney General, which handles low-level crimes, said criminal charges wouldn’t serve the public’s best interests even though possession of the magazine – capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition – was clearly against local gun laws.

Emphasis is mine.  Here is a simple question what does “serve the public’s best interests” mean?  I can tell you what it means.  It means that again we see a double standard exists between the media elites and government goons that enforce laws.  We see that rules and laws apply to everyone UNLESS what you are doing fits with their agenda.

As a gun rights activist and advocate I think this “law” is about as stupid as they come and don’t think ANYONE should be punished for it and more importantly NO government should even be allowed to enact such a stupid law.

However what I really object to is also the double standard this issue gets.  Since this issue fit with the governments desire to gin up support to outlaw guns and further restrict the 2nd Amendment we will look the other way “for the public good” mind you.

If however this scenario had been some guy in his house who was caught with this and not doing anything with it other than simply possessing it he would would not have received any special consideration “for the public good” and nobody would be talking about “it not serving the public interest” in prosecuting him.  Instead they would drag the poor bastard in front of the court and crucify him.

We should ALL despise nanny state government sticking their collective noses into our business and trying to regulate us into oblivion no matter what the laws, but when those laws are selectively applied based on the fact that one scenario involves promoting a government agenda of the collective and one is simply ignoring the intervention, but they each receive two totally different outcomes is wrong.  It is everything that is wrong and rotten at the core with government.

Try explaining to the prosecutor the next time you get snagged on some stupid gun law charge that is a victimless crime, as the NBC incident was, and ask that it be thrown out  because it wouldn’t “serve the public interests” by prosecuting you and see what happens.

Gun Control Rages On

As this week starts off many are breathlessly awaiting the recommendations from gun banner, Joe Biden and his “blue ribbon” panel of fellow gun banners.  What recommendations is he going to offer to curb “gun violence” in this country in the wake of the horrible act of evil at Sandy Hook Elementary about a month ago.

Of course Biden’s “recommendations” will be a long laundry list of the gun banners favorite items, AWB ban, high capacity magazine bans, background checks for all sales including private ones, ammunition limits and curbs, etc. with just a sprinkle of other things to make it look like they actually listened to other recommendations and were fair and balanced in their approach.

What is amazing is that no other right Americans share ever comes under assault the way gun rights do when one individual does an evil act.  When it involves guns somehow the evil act is so much worse that we must take EVERYONE’S rights away because of one individual.  The Founders would never have envisioned this in their most horrible nightmares.

Let’s take another fictional scenario to prove the point.  Suppose a man and women who are married decide to get divorced.  Happens everyday.  Suppose it is a really nasty and bitter divorce, also happens everyday.  Now suppose our women in this story works at a school as a playground and bus monitor.  Suppose our man in this story is a bit unstable mentally.  One day our man in this story decides to get back at his former wife for something.  So early in the morning he starts drinking Jack Daniels to build up his courage and blunt his inhibitions.

In our fictional example our now mostly drunk man goes to the school during recess and takes his big F-150 truck and runs through the playground attempting to kill his wife and as many innocent children as possible.  He drives around and hits multiple children including his wife.  At the end of the chaos the death toll is 26, which is made up of 20 children and 6 teachers because he was able to hit a large crowd of kids before they could get off the playground and out of harm’s way.

If this horrible fictional story came true do you believe we would be having a national debate about banning Jack Daniels or banning the sale of “high capacity” bottles of whiskey?  How about trucks, would be discussing the banning of trucks or saying we need to institute stronger background checks on people that buy whiskey or trucks?

Of course not.  Most would say this is downright silly and it is.  In an example like this people have no problem distinguishing between an evil person and the inanimate objects he used to do his crime with.  But change the above story just slightly and add a semi-automatic rifle or any gun for that matter and keep our mental disorder in there and it  is the same exact tragedy that occurred in Newtown CT a little over a month ago, but with vastly different reactions to a solution to prevent the horrible tragedy in the future.  Why?

The fictional story presented and Newtown share an evil act by a lone individual and the number of people dead is the same, but one involves a truck and whiskey and one involves a semi-automatic rifle, but all the items are inanimate objects not capable of hurting anyone by themselves.  The proposed “solutions” to the problem are anything but the same.

Why is the story that involves the gun more evil than the one with our fictional drunk guy driving a truck?  Why does Newtown make politicians want to treat the scenario totally different than the fictional story?  Both scenarios have the same number of dead people and both are senseless killings.  Only thing fundamentally different is a the back story that leads up to it and the object used to do the killing.  Both of which are irrelevant to stopping the killing or lowering the number dead.

The bottom line is guns are just inanimate objects the same as whiskey and trucks are.  None of these items can hurt anyone if used by responsible people who don’t want to do evil acts against other people.  So why is the treatment towards them so fundamentally different?  Why is one so demonized [guns] and one probably not even mentioned as significant [trucks and whiskey]?

Gun control is not about guns.  It is about control.  It is about liberals declaring that guns in your hands are bad, but guns in their hands is OK.  It is about removing your sovereign right to self defense and liberty, while making sure they retain it for themselves.

See, liberals and gun control advocates don’t hate guns per se, if they did they would also want them outlawed for the military and police and government groups like the Secret Service, but they don’t.  They do want them outlawed from YOU having them.  Maybe it is time we ask the questions…why?

Definition of “Assault” Weapon

After the tragic shooting in Connecticut the political vultures like Feinstein, Bloomberg, Shumer, and now many others who are joining the chorus see an opportunity to shove through sweeping legislation including the their coveted “Assault” Weapon Ban. Since that is probably their top priority I thought it might be interesting to help clear up the misunderstandings out there on exactly what an “assault” weapon is.

First, I must give these hyenas and their lap dogs in the press credit by adding the word “assault” to the definition of the rifles they wish to ban. It goes a long way to scaring the average American who doesn’t know better into believing their is some truth or validity to the statement. After all many Americans who don’t understand what the 2nd Amendment was really written for are easily swayed by the “nobody needs a military assault weapon like the [insert favorite hated gun here] for hunting, or whatever”.

So let’s create a clear definition of “assault weapon” and what better source than the U.S. Government itself, specifically the U.S. Army. On the author does a great job of linking to the specific documents, but I want to put two key items from those documents…

It is Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70 from November 1970, and was also published in later editions. The book is “Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide – Eurasian Communist Countries”, written by Harold E. Johnson. It was prepared by what at the time was the U.S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center of the Army Material Command.

You can click on any scanned image above to see it for yourself. The quote itself is on page 67 of this edition in section III, part A, paragraph 68a, and reads as follows:

“Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub machine gun and rifle cartridges.”

The paragraph concludes by adding:

“Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters.”

There are some key items in here, notice the words in bold…

“Selective Fire”, which means a firearm that is capable of having multiple firing modes from full automatic to shooting short burst of bullets with a SINGLE PULL of the trigger.

“full-automatic”, which of course means a firearm that fires MULTIPLE bullets with a SINGLE PULL of the trigger.

It may surprise people to know there has been a ban on full automatic weapons, i.e. machine guns since 1934.  Yes, that is correct, since 1934 we have had an “Assault Weapon Ban” as defined by the U.S. Government and more specifically the U.S. Army.

So if that is the case, what is this new “assault weapon ban” you are hearing about? Quite simply it is banning SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons that LOOK like a military gun, but don’t FUNCTION like a military weapon.

“semi-automatic”, which means ONE bullet comes out with a SINGLE pull of the trigger.  The same as the .22 rifle or most pistols today. They may LOOK like a military “assault” rifle, but don’t actually WORK like one.

In other words these guns they want to ban are simply REPLICAS of military style weapons.

So if they are only REPLICAS why do politicians want to ban them?  Because they want to ban ALL guns eventually and realize this must be done in tiny little baby steps to work.  They start by demonizing these guns and calling them “assault” weapons and once they safely have those out of the hands of private citizens they will figure out the next target and invent an equally demonizing term for it and go to work at banning THAT gun, whatever it may be.  And so it goes gun by gun until the people are fully disarmed.

Gun banners on the left have an infinite amount of patience and are willing to work at total disarmament of private citizens for as long as it takes and are willing to do it in little bite sized chunks as well.  This is the first step to what they truly want.

To those waffling politicians out there that supposedly are 2nd Amendment supporters who are now seeing “a need to have an honest discussion” or are “open to common sense changes” you are simply giving up the first line of defense.  The gun banning left will NOT be happy with just these changes.  They will want more.  They always do.  There is no negotiation with these people.  None.

In the 20th Century alone 10s of millions of people were killed by Mao, Stalin, Hitler and other brutal dictators who all started the same way… disarming the people.  Given the left’s insanely positive feelings towards some of these people I don’t think I trust them when they say they just want “common sense” gun law changes.

Nobody can bring back the people that were lost in Connecticut and as much as we would like to do something constructive the bottom line is evil does exist in the world.  Our hearts and compassion should go out to anyone who was affected by this horrific event, but you can’t create enough laws to get rid of it.

Eliminating these guns won’t solve the problem, but it is the first step of setting the people up for much more horrific loss of life in the future, just ask some of the unlucky “citizens” of countries ruled by Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Oh, wait you can’t they were massacred by their own government.

NotNegation, unary operator in logic depicted as ~, ¬, or !

Justice John Roberts – Traitor!

With one vote Justice John Roberts has just betrayed the Constitution, the American people and has permanently altered the power of the Federal Government by siding with the socialist in this country and saying it was OK to allow the Federal government to force people to buy health insurance!  That’s right folks this traitor just said there are NO LIMITS on Federal power now because the individual mandate in Obama Care is OK!

Our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves right now.  They never envisioned a country where the Federal government could come along and force people to buy something simply for the privilege of being a citizen, but Justice Roberts has changed all of that with one vote.  He has said the mandate “is like a tax” which means the government can regulate it.  That is total B.S.!  It is a mandate forcing people to buy health insurance!  Anyone who thought this guy was a conservative that believed in limited government has been proven TOTALLY wrong and has ended that debate once and for all.  He has given the Federal thugs the green light to do ANYTHING they want now.  The future laws of this country will be forever altered just as they were in 1942 with the Wickard v. Filburn decision because of his betrayal!

Leading up to this decision everyone in the media kept talking about which “Conservative” Justice would side with the liberals and socialist to give them a win.  Most thought it would be Kennedy, but it wasn’t.  It was that stalwart of conservative belief that titan of the Constitution and now traitor Justice John Roberts.

Today is a dark day for freedom, liberty, and the Constitution and it was all made possible by a traitor.  I hope all remember that.

Why Socialists, Marxists and Liberals are Winning

One of my favorite bloggers that I follow Patrice Lewis of Rural Revolution has written a brilliant column this week for WND asking why the liberals keep winning when many polls and surveys show that liberals are outnumbered almost 2/1 in national populations.  This is something that has also baffled me when I saw these surveys.  My question was always along the lines of how could a relatively small minority of socialists and liberals seem to always get their way.  How do they rule the majority so effectively.

My favorite puzzle to ponder is when I run into a flat our liberal progressive who advocates for all of these policies, but then does everything within their power to avoid having those very same policies applied to themselves.  I once ran into a VERY liberal activist who had spent her entire working career in public education.  She had the love for socialism, high taxes, and Marxism permanently fused to her DNA.  Yet, when she retired she did everything in her power to pay as little taxes as she could on her retirement package!

I was completely speechless, which isn’t a place I find myself very often, that she would advocate so loudly and aggressively for high taxes and welfare for all and then try and pay as little taxes as possible. My thought is if you want it you want all of these programs than you should be first to line to help pay for it, but alas that is not the way it works for them.  Most liberals and socialist live a relatively conservative lifestyle, although they would never call it that, but yet go out and vote liberal.  The only answer I was ever able to come up with is they are fundamentally crazy!

I don’t want to reveal too much of the article here because I think it is well worth the read, but the basic premise is that the greatest love of Conservatives and Libertarians, i.e. our desire to simply be left alone to live our lives is also our greatest weakness.  It is the chink in our armor so to speak.

Many liberals and socialist can go out and get jobs in the public sector working for non-profits and government and their full time job essentially becomes pushing their ridiculous ideas on the rest of us.  Conservatives and Libertarians have real jobs and careers for the most part and don’t want to live their lives constantly smacking these biting insects away every day so they go back to living their lives and the progressives sneak more stuff through as soon as we turn our backs.

This is why groups like the Tea Party are such a threat to these people and why the left has done everything in their power to destroy these groups such as calling them racists and now trying to sick the IRS on them.  The reason is simple when the Conservative/Libertarian people of the country who want government held in check and want Constitutionally limited government where the Bill of Rights is respected start using the tactics the left, progressives, socialists, and Marxists have been using we start turning the numbers advantage we have to our side into victories that push the left back.  That is one of the reasons you see election after recent election becoming a blow out for the liberty loving people.  The ultimate test will of course be November.  Not that I think Romney is a great or even good candidate and certainly not a true conservative or Libertarian however he also isn’t a radical Marxists like the current tyrant in Chief, Obama is either.

The short answer here is that now that it appears the Conservatives and Libertarians are starting to wake up to the fact that we have to play a different game here to win and groups like the Tea Parties and others are vitally important to that effort.  IF everyone who wants a common sense, Constitutional Republic starts fighting for it like the left does everyday for a socialist society we will win hands down.  Fight fire with fire in other words.

Hunter, Liar, or Moron – You Decide

A New York Times Op Ed Contributor who claimed to be a hunter and sportswomen also said the NRA did not speak for her and she was for gun control.  She went on to say that the NRA was not really a pro-hunting organization and she apparently did not appreciate being lumped in with common gun owners because she was a hunter.  Apparently she missed the NRA sponsored bill H.B. 4089 titled “The Sportsman’s Heritage Act” that recently passed the House of Representatives only to go die in the Democrat controlled Senate.  Maybe she also missed the fight the NRA had with the EPA when it was petitioned by radical environmental groups to ban lead ammunition, which would have directly hurt hunters across the nation and driven the cost of hunting up even more.  At its core this petition was an anti-gun AND anti-hunting bill.

In the column she claims she owns guns, but not for self-defense.  What a stupid statement.  Guns don’t come labeled “for hunting only” or “for self-defense only” they are tools and what someone uses them for is up to the user.  Therefore if you own a gun and only use it for hunting, fine, but gun control laws still affect you regardless if you use your gun for some other stated purpose besides self defense.

Further, someone should let her know that gun control advocates will not stop when they get to the guns that are “used for hunting only”.  They will not stop or rest until they remove every gun from every citizen.  However like most dastardly tyrants gun control advocates realize they can’t do this in one fell swoop.  Instead they need to eat the elephant by taking it down one bite at a time.  So they start with laws against “assault weapons” and introduce laws for micro-stamping, gun registries, waiting periods, one gun per month, and other useless regulations because they figure that only affects a small group they can isolate and rip their rights away.  These same gun control advocates are always quick to say “but this won’t affect sportsman or hunters”.  However it is still an assault on the 2nd Amendment and the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting!

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.

No where in that Amendment does it mention the words “hunting” or “sportsman” the reason is simple it doesn’t have anything to do with hunting although hunters benefit from it.  However I digress.

Gun control advocates will not stop once they get all the “guns for self defense only” removed, next they will start working on all the guns that hunters and sportsman use as well.  If you doubt this simply look at Great Britain, Germany, France, or any of the other numerous European countries where gun control was allowed to run rapanant like a disease.  Yes, “technically” hunting still exists there, but it is now so expensive and so regulated that it essentially doesn’t exist any longer.  No doubt the gun control advocates over there didn’t start by restricting hunting or sportsman.  Instead they started by banning all the guns for “self defense only” and moved on from there.

Diane Fienstein has said before that if she had the votes or the power she would remove every gun from every citizen….

Senator Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes”, February 5, 1995


Notice in her statement she didn’t say she was only going to take the guns from people who used them for “for self defense only”.  She wants all guns taken away from everyone.

However parcing the meaning of guns for self defense or hunting is totally pointless anyway.  Self defense, hunting, and right to bear arms are natural laws of man, meaning they were born with these rights, not given them by government.

I conclude by saying this women is either a liar, meaning she isn’t really a gun owner, but saying she is makes her believe she has credibility to claim she believes in more gun control or she is an idiot because she doesn’t understand that gun control affects hunters as well.  Further, she also fails to completely misunderstand what the NRA stands for and what it has done for hunters, which makes her ill informed on top of being a moron or liar.  Her exact status can be determined by each reader of this post.  I know what mine is.