A Truly Moronic Liberal
Dec 31, 2009 Political, Second Amendment
El Capitan over at the Baboon Pirates blog has an article about a recent school shooting incident. The following is from a math teacher at Brockton High School. It was published at Boston.com:
I am a math teacher at Brockton High School, the site of a school shooting earlier this month.
Current school security procedures lock down school populations in the event of armed assault. Some advocate abandoning this practice as it holds everyone in place, allowing a shooter easily to find victims.
An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.
Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.
Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment.
But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
DOUG VAN GORDER
Quincy
[emphasis mine]
Two things here. The first is that only a true moron would rather bury his children (or any loved one) rather than defend them. This kind of person, one who will not defend himself of his family, by any means necessary, is the lowest form of life. It is the kind of person who stands around in times of trouble waiting for someone else to fix the problem. This is the kind of person who is devastated by a Hurricane Katrina and stands knee deep in water, yards from dry land, looking for someone to help.
There is no lower form of man than one who will not defend his children. You can extrapolate a lot from what he said. He could just have easily stated, I would rather watch my wife or daughter get raped rather than shoot the attacker. I would rather see my son get sodomized rather than shoot his attacker.
The term self-defense in and of itself means that it is not a crime regardless of what one uses for defense. All people are entitled to the right of self-defense.
All people except those whose only claim to being a man is the Y chromosome.
The second problem is that this twit is teaching children. Who wants their children taught by such a weak and unmanly person? This is the kind of person who has a lot to do with forming the minds and thoughts of the youth in this country. His article will be seen by many children and he will be asked about it. How will he justify to them the cowardice he demonstrates in the piece?
Will his position encourage impressionable children into believing that even the lives of their loved ones are not worth protecting if one has to use a firearm to do it?
If you are a criminal up in this area you might want to visit this guy’s house. You already know he will not offer resistance no matter what you do.
He would rather bury his children than protect them.
What kind of cowards are we producing these days?
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.
Tags: coward, school shooting, self defense
Rules Regarding Our Rights
Dec 27, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
The last presidential election demonstrated that we need some controls on who we allow to vote. I had suggested that people should have to pass a test in order to vote or that people should receive more votes based on how much money they pay in taxes. This is not my idea and has been explored by others. The idea is like those who own stock in a company. Those who own more get more votes and in the case of elections, those who pay more in taxes would have more votes because they are providing more of the capital to run the country.
I remember when I made these suggestions I had a few folks who said that what I wanted amounted to racism and discrimination because I would require people to qualify to exercise a basic right. I see nothing wrong with giving a person a basic civics test and making him pass before he is registered to vote but for some reason this gets the panties of some in a wad. The videos in the bottom right siderbar clearly demonstrate why some folks should not be allowed to vote but even the stupidity displayed is not enough reason for the crowd that believes people should have unfettered access to the polling places (unless a Black Panther is intimidating people).
It is interesting to me that people would oppose an idea that would impose qualifications on a so called right. Keeping in mind that the Constitution does not give anyone a right to vote we will assume that it does for the sake of argument. That and that states have set up voting as the method to select people for office. Why would people feel offended that we would impose a qualification to exercise a right?
The very same liberals who get bent out of shape at some sort of litmus test to exercise the right to vote have no problem setting up barriers for those who want to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment. You see, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. The Founders used wording that acknowledged the right existed prior to the founding of this nation. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But it is infringed each and every day. Many states impose restrictions on who may and who may not own a gun and they are very strict on allowing people to carry them. In Maryland, assuming one meets all the checks for criminal record and mental health, one must demonstrate that he is in danger or has been the victim of threats. In some states people must register the gun, submit to a background check, attend safety classes and then, if the state feels generous, the person might get issued a carry permit. These permits and the background checks all come with fees that the gun owner must pay.
Imagine if there were a fee to register to vote. Suppose a person who wanted to vote had to fill out a form, pay a fee and then get a background check and pass a test before being allowed to vote? The ACLU and many other alleged civil rights organizations would be lined up to file the lawsuits crying about the denial of a right. They seem pretty comfortable with these restrictions on a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.
Suppose that Congress made a law that people who wanted to go to church had to pay a fee and have a background check before they could attend services or be affiliated with a religion. Suppose people had to pay fees and pay to get speech training before they could exercise free speech. All of this would not sit well with the very liberals who attacked me for my suggestion that there be a voting test and yet they remain silent when it comes to the rights of the citizens to own and carry firearms.
Well, they are not exactly silent. They are usually speaking out in favor of gun control and against the rights acknowledged in the Constitution. These are the folks who will vote for candidates who want to exercise extreme gun control and who want to ban certain types of weapons (so called assault weapons). They seem to be able to rationalize that it is OK to infringe on one right if they disagree with the right but not on any right they hold sacred.
The “right” to an abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution. The word abortion does not appear in the document and yet the Supreme Court found that right in Roe vs. Wade. This decision overturned all the laws states had regarding abortion and now the left is so wrapped up in this murderous practice that anything sensible is an assault. Require minors to tell their parents, a violation of the “right.” No abortions after the third trimester, a violation so let’s go on and have partial birth abortions to ensure that babies are murdered any time the woman wants to exercise her “right.” God forbid any lawmaker tries to write some kind of law that places any restriction whatsoever on abortion because then the left gets up in arms and sees it as an affront to a basic “right.”
Not so much for gun ownership. The left wants to impose extremely restrictive rules on the law abiding citizens who want to exercise a right that, unlike abortion, is clearly spelled out.
As we move into the anti gun administration and as people like anti gun Caroline Kennedy look to be put into office we will see more restrictions put forth in bills at the federal level. States will try to impose even tighter control. As they do, ask how you would react if these impositions were directed at the other rights that are held as sacrosanct.
Barack Obama said that he felt the government could impose common sense restrictions on rights (he was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms). If this is the case then my common sense restrictions can be placed on voters. I am all in favor of a criminal records check to buy a firearm so that criminals do not buy guns. I am also in favor of a common sense approach to voting. I wonder if Obama will feel that voting should have some common sense restrictions placed on it…
Without the Second Amendment there would be no First and if the liberals get their way it too will be in jeopardy.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: abortion, free speech, gun control, Second Amendment, voting
Obama Will Give Amnesty And You Will Pay For It
Oct 29, 2008 Immigration, Political, Second Amendment
Not to long ago nearly the entire Congress, John McCain included, tried to ram an amnesty package down our throats. That package would have given million of illegals a path to citizenship by largely ignoring the fact that they committed a crime to get here. The country went nuts and flooded the switchboards at the Capitol and the legislation went down in defeat.
More than 80% of this country opposed the idea of allowing illegals a pathway to citizenship that amounted to nothing more than amnesty. Now, a large portion of that opposition is prepared to elect a man who has stated that he wants to give the illegals a pathway to citizenship. Barack Obama is in favor of allowing millions of people to become citizens and thus gaining the right to vote. Obama will put politics ahead of country and allow millions of Democratic supporters to infiltrate our voter rolls and change the dynamics of politics for generations to come.
Under Barack Obama these new “citizens” will turn Texas into a deep blue state and it will take many of the other southern states with it. Traditional Republican strongholds will be infiltrated by millions of people eager to keep the party that gives away taxpayer money in power. This will spell disaster for the Republican party but more importantly, it will spell disaster for our country. Millions of people will flood government offices for Social Security benefits, medical care, and any number of other taxpayer funded social programs thus evaporating already scarce resources.
People need to wake up and see what is happening. Obama’s open secret is that he believes in Socialism. He told that to Joe the Plumber and said it in 2001 during an interview. Barack Obama believes that wealth in this country should be taken from people who earn it and given to those who do not. His idea of Utopia is wealth redistribution and no matter how Joe Biden tries to spin it and no matter how his supporters try to ignore it the plain fact is, the words came out of Barack Obama’s mouth.
If it isn’t bad enough that Obama is willing to give taxpayer money out like candy at Halloween, the government wants to confiscate more of your money in order to redistribute it to others. There is a plan being bounced around to force you to move all of your 401 (k) retirement money into government accounts. The plan will either involve putting it in a different pool or adding it to “your” Social Security fund which is a misnomer because the money goes to the general fund where Congress takes it and spends it. To top it off, government will require you to contribute 5% of you pay to the fund thus taking more of your money to redistribute.
This plan, which was discussed by some economist, involves redistribution of wealth. She said that it would give everyone an equal share (wealth redistribution). This is money that you have worked for and that you have invested in different accounts that, despite current problems, will do well for you. The government will require you to pool all the money you saved with the money of others and then the government will decide who gets how much of it. If you have $100 and someone else has $50, you both get $75. In other words, Obama and the Democrats will redistribute $25 of your money to someone else.
If Barack Obama becomes the president and allows millions of illegals to become citizens they will be standing in line with their hands out waiting for you to hand them the money you saved for your retirement.
I have said before that Social Security was a method used by the government to gain and keep control over people. They hold Social Security hostage in order to influence the lives of the elderly and the way they vote. They keep people dependent on government so that the government can control the population. Allowing them to take your retirement will ensure that instead of retiring and living the life you worked hard to achieve, you will live the life government decides you should live.
That, my friends, is nothing more than Socialism and it starts with Barack Hussein Obama.
Polling agencies have been using inaccurate methods based on unrealistic projections and Obama is continually reported to have a big lead. The race is much closer and this is evident by several things. One, Gallup used the traditional polling method in its last poll and Obama only has a 2% lead. Obama is reported to have a 10% lead in Pennsylvania and yet he and Biden are spending huge amounts of time and resources in that state. If their internal polls showed the 10 point lead the external polls show they would be campaigning in other, more closely contested states. The fact that they are spending all that time in a state they are shown as winning easily speaks volumes about how close this really is. Last night’s Rasmussen polls showed Obama with no larger than a 4% lead in any battleground state. The pollsters do not want to be wrong on this so now they are reverting back to the proven methods and those methods are showing a very tight race.
Don’t let the intentional deception of the last few weeks keep you from voting. John McCain and Sarah Palin can win this election but they will need all of us who oppose Socialism to go out and vote. No matter what the weather is like, no matter what else is going on, no matter what you hear, you must get out and vote. If all the people who oppose illegal aliens getting citizenship and those who oppose Socialism as well as gun owners (those of us who cling to them) get out and vote we can defeat Obama.
They have told us what they want to do. They want to increase taxes, make illegals citizens, spend 300 billion dollars more on a stimulus package, ban guns, and cut military spending by 25%. Barack Obama has told us he wants to spread our wealth around. We can stop that by getting out and voting.
But if you vote for Obama or if you sit this one out, don’t say you weren’t warned because they told us what they will do to us and if they control Congress and the White House that is exactly what they will do.
Your money will no longer be yours and Karl Marx will be laughing from the pits of Hell.
Related article:
Newsmax
Tags: gun bans, ILLEGAL immigration, Obama, socialism, tax increases, wealth redistribution
Obama Can’t Convince Those Clinging To Guns
Sep 7, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
Barack Obama has the same problem most liberals do when it comes to the Second Amendment and that problem is, they don’t support it. When they are in office and not running for election or reelection they all talk tough on gun control. They want to remove guns from the streets because that will end violence, blah, blah. They continue with this even though cities with the toughest gun control laws still have huge numbers of people killed by guns and in places where LAW ABIDING citizens are allowed to carry guns, crimes are lower. Of course, when they are running for office they act like proud supporters of the Second Amendment and that it is a right and they would not take guns. Some of them dress up like Elmer Fudd and pretend they actually support gun ownership ala John Kerry. Barry Obama finds himself in a similar spot because he has always supported strict gun control measures. He supports Chicago’s gun ban and he supported the unconstitutional gun ban in DC (both are unconstitutional but only the DC ban has been ruled on). Barry is having trouble convincing the people that he is one of them and that he believes in gun ownership:
A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’ Wall Street Journal
Conservatives don’t have to prove they will uphold the Second Amendment because their record is clear on the issue. The problem is that Liberals can’t seem to understand that the Second is as important as any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and without it, the others would likely be in peril. Obama has opposed gun ownership and he did so in his own handwriting on a candidate survey. He now says he believes the Second is an individual right (which it is and always has been) and that we can uphold the Second by allowing cities to put restrictions in place for public safety.
Have we ever heard a politician discuss restrictions on any other right enumerated in the Constitution? Suppose Senator Obama or any other Liberal wanted to allow free expression of religion except that cities could put limits in place for public safety? How about no Islamic Mosques in city limits because the call to prayer disturbs non Muslims? How about no Mosques or Synagogues in city limits because Muslims hate Jews? Maybe we could have the city shut down certain websites from reaching the city limits or certain newspapers because the comments contain hate filled speech. Imagine if a really Conservative city banned any liberal media from being sold there, in the interest of safety. Words can incite hatred and violence, better be careful.
Suppose people like Obama felt that that the Fourth Amendment is an individual right against unlawful search and seizure but that cities with high crime rates and other social problems had a right to regulate that for public safety. Maybe they could say that all cars in a certain high violence area would be stopped and searched for weapons and that homes in the area would be randomly searched for meth labs, guns and other illegal items, all in the name of public safety. Why is it that the Second Amendment is treated differently than the others?
Obama does not support the Second Amendment. His position is now more to the center because he is in the general election and he needed to tact to the middle in order to gain voters. One other telling item is that Obama selected Biden as his running mate. Biden is known as Mr. Gun Control. Biden claims to have written the assault weapons ban (which bans only law abiding citizens from having them) and has given a rating of F by the NRA. Joe Biden thinks that if you own a weapon and you consider it your “baby” you need your head examined. He believes in strict gun control and has voted against the Second Amendment so how does this square for Obama as a believer in gun rights?
Obama saw in the hand picked audience that he had skeptics with regard to his position on gun control. Saracuda hit him hard on how he spoke to people in San Francisco compared to how he spoke to those who cling to guns and religion in Pennsylvania and the rest of Middle America. It seems she was very accurate on this issue and Obama is finding it out. It is not reassuring that he said even if he wanted to he did not have the votes in Congress. Keep in mind that the Democrats are expecting to pick up enough seats to rubber stamp anything Obama wants so he WILL have enough votes, if all goes according to their plan. I also think it is funny to see the whine which basically said; C’mon, this is not really a reason to not vote for me, is it?
Your damn right it is! If we cannot trust a politician to uphold all of our rights then it is reason not to vote for him. If you had held the beliefs in my examples above there would be plenty of people who would think it was good reason not to vote for you. As a matter of fact, Obama and his running mate have both stated that they would pursue criminal charges against George Bush if they get elected (Biden said that was a lie and wanted to know where people got the idea. It was the video of him saying it, I think). These alleged crimes include violations of the Constitution. Ignoring the Second Amendment is a violation of the Constitution. People are not convinced that Obama believes in the rights of gun owners and they have good reason to be concerned. Obama has lied about his positions, here they are.
Barack Obama is having trouble with Middle America and part of the reason is his stance on Second Amendment rights. The left expects gun control and one of the things they view as negative about Palin is her lifetime membership in the NRA. Obama is beholden to the left and he will try to limit gun ownership.
The left is out of touch and Obama demonstrated that with the position that we could have a right and regulate it with control for some but not for others (which is what he really means). Criminals will not follow any kind of ban. They drank during prohibition, they use drugs that are illegal and criminals use guns everyday. They will not obey the law.
Why should anyone believe what Obama says anyway? When he won election to the US Senate he said he was not qualified to be President. Nothing has changed since then but now he is??
Believing that gun control will stop criminals from using guns is like believing that ethics reform will keep members of Congress from being unethical.
Tags: constitution, gun control, nra, Obama, Second Amendment
MD Senator Currie Wrong On Gun Ownership
Aug 18, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
Maryland State Senator Ulysses Currie of the 25th district (who is under federal investigation for illegal activities) wrote a piece about gun control. Currie is upset that the Supreme Court reaffirmed what our founders stated by ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Currie takes exception to this and indicates that no other court has ruled this way. Actually, no other court has looked at this issue. The 1939 Miller case is held by gun control advocates as a bellwether for a militia interpretation but the ruling had nothing to do with the issue at hand. It dealt with interstate commerce and a weapon, not who had the right to carry it.
Currie is very upset that the SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban and, like Chicken Little, cries “the sky is falling.” He asserts that we will have more murders in DC and he further goes to point out that states with more lenient gun control laws have higher death by gun rates. His statistics come from The Violence Policy Center which is an anti gun organization. The raw numbers are misleading and there are many other factors that play into this. What is very interesting is that Currie fails to mention the DC gun death rate which is one of the HIGHEST in the country. How can that be if strict gun laws keep us safe?
It is important to remember that one can make any claim using numbers. It is also important to note that gun death rates encompass a lot of reasons for death like suicide, justifiable shootings (as in the police or self defense), accidental shootings and criminal acts (murder or crimes resulting in murder). Another thing to consider is the number of crimes that were committed by law abiding citizens with carry permits. This makes a big difference because if the crimes are committed by people who should not have guns then the laws forbidding their possession are not working. Currie should whittle down the numbers and point out how many crimes are committed by people who are permitted to carry.
This is important because people like Currie lamented about how Florida would see a marked increase in gun deaths after the state relaxed its gun laws and allowed more people to carry. This has never come to fruition. In Florida hundreds of thousands of permits to carry have been issued and fewer than 20 people with a permit have been involved in crimes (not necessarily involving gun use). Up through 1998 no permit holder has ever shot a police officer but several permit holders have assisted police.
If Currie wants to skew statistics let me help him out. Blacks comprise a small portion of the population and yet they account for a disproportionate number of gun deaths. Cities with the largest number of blacks in the population (like DC, LA, and New Orleans) have higher murder rates than cities with more whites. In 2007 California ranked fourth behind Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Indiana in the number of black homicides. The black homicide rate pushes the rate for each state high because the rate is about four times higher than their percentage of the population. Is it fair to say that removing blacks from the states would lower gun death rates? While we are on the subject, Hispanics account for a disproportionately high number of gun deaths as well. The statistics certainly lay out a case for lowering the death rate by removing the minorities. This approach is as legitimate as using crime statistics for illegal acts as a methodology to ban LEGAL gun ownership. Perhaps we should ban people who live in Maryland’s 25th District from running for office there because 100% of the current Senators from there are under federal investigation. Banning everyone for the acts of criminals is nonsensical. Before anyone tells me that Currie has not had his day in court so he should be presumed innocent, keep in mind that he is assuming that all gun owners commit criminal acts and should not be allowed to own them.
What Currie fails to realize is that the crimes are being committed by people who have no regard for the law. DC, Chicago and many other major cities with extremely tough gun control laws have high gun murder rates. Once again, if the gun laws work why are these places suffering gun deaths? If gun control lowers gun deaths than these places should be the safest places on earth. Unfortunately, some of them have a higher death rate than Iraq and it is in the middle of a war.
People who obey the law do not get permits to carry weapons and then go around shooting people. The facts have proven time and again that law abiding citizens do not commit murders and that law breakers do not care about gun laws because they don’t follow the rules anyway.
Currie has his panties in a wad because the Supreme Court acknowledged that gun ownership is an individual right. This is nothing new. As I have pointed out before, the founders stated that the PEOPLE will be allowed to have guns. It is an undeniable truth. Regardless of the fact that it defies logic to think that the words “The People” mean all citizens everywhere it is used except the Second Amendment, the issue is moot because of the founder’s own words. Walter E Williams has a comprehensive listing of the founder’s quotes on the subject. I defy Currie or anyone else to read them and then demonstrate how they mean anything BUT an individual right. For example:
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
The people of the United States who are peaceable citizens. How can anyone misconstrue this to be anything other than an individual right?
Ulysses Currie is absolutely wrong on this issue. The places that allow citizens to own and carry weapons are the safest in the country. There are some gun control states that have low gun death rates. It would be interesting to see what the demographics of the population are because I would wager they are mostly law abiding people.
Once again, Mr. Currie, law abiding citizens do not go around killing people. Criminals account for the overwhelming majority of the gun deaths and all the laws in the world will not change their behavior.
We call them criminals for a reason.
Tags: DC, gun control, individual right, Maryland, Second Amendment, supreme court, ulysses currie
Loading ...
Loading... 
