The anti gun zealots are out in full force trying to usurp the Second Amendment by removing guns from society. Some members of Congress (and other politicians) are touting outright bans on specific types of guns as well as laws forcing people who already own such firearms to sell them to the government, in a sort of forced buyback program. These people are either mentally deficient or are hiding their true agenda. You see, gun laws and gun bans do not stop people who are intent on doing harm with a firearm from doing so.
This is evident in nearly all mass shootings since about 1950. In all but one of them the criminal opened fire in a place where guns are not allowed. The one where guns are allowed is Arizona where Congresswoman Giffords was shot. The gunman, by the way, was stopped by a citizen who was legally carrying a firearm.
I do not think these folks are mentally deficient (they might be but that is not the issue here) because they know what they are doing. They are using mass murder incidents to gin up public support for disarming Americans. They want this because one of the steps to Socialism requires people to be disarmed of the tools that would allow them to resist. Once all firearms are outlawed then government becomes the holder of the weapons and is free to impose its will on those who will no longer have the means to resist. These people need to have citizens willingly turn in their guns (or try to force them to sell them back) because an outright confiscation would lead to a lot of dead government agents. Americans will not be disarmed by force and there are many more gun owners than there are government agents.
Besides, many of those agents have stated they would not follow any order to disarm their fellow citizens.
But will these laws actually work? We have seen time and again that laws banning guns do not stop criminals from using guns. Chicago is a glaring example. In fact, no law stops criminals. The very nature of a criminal is that he breaks laws. Even everyday people break the law (hell we probably break a lot of laws each day because we do not know they exist) as when they go over the posted speed limit. How many non handicapped people park in a handicapped spot? How many times do people drink alcohol and drive? Those who would do violence are no exception to this except they do not know where to draw a line. They will use firearms (that they are not legally allowed to buy or posses) to commit crimes regardless of what society has deemed via its laws.
David Gregory of NBC is not a stupid person. He is an educated man who is quite successful. He is a liberal so he obviously has a brain deficiency but he is otherwise intelligent. He is under investigation for breaking a DC firearm law. Gregory displayed a 30 round magazine on his Sunday show. It is against the law in DC to posses a magazine with a capacity larger than 10 rounds. New reports have indicated that Gregory was made aware of this prior to his show and yet he chose to go ahead and display the magazine.
This means that he knew it was against the law to posses that particular item but he decided to break the law anyway.
The law did not stop Gregory from possessing the magazine and knowledge of the law did not keep him from displaying it to the three or four people who watch his show. He knew he would be in violation but did not care enough about the law to obey it.
We can argue all day about the stupidity of size limits on magazines (they are worthless laws) but the reality is, this is the law and Gregory broke it.
How would any other law have kept him from consciously deciding to break the law? How would any other law have prevented him from doing what he did when the law already on the books failed to accomplish that?
The truth is laws do not keep people from breaking them. They only provide a framework for the law abiding to follow and a system for the legal process to function once someone breaks the law.
We do not need more gun laws, we have plenty of them. We need the government to stop infringing on the Second Amendment rights we all have by virtue of our birth. If law abiding people were not restricted then criminals would think twice.
Laws only hamper those who follow them as the criminal is unencumbered by such things.
Ask David Gregory who unintentionally demonstrated why more laws are not the answer.
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 13, 2012 Political
In 1990 Republican Clayton “Claytie” Williams of Texas made a joke involving rape by comparing it to the weather:
As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.
It was distasteful when it was said and people expressed as much when he was defeated in his bid to become Governor of Texas. The words came back to life in 2008 when Williams hosted an event for John McCain. The left, well known for selective outrage, wondered if McCain would return campaign donations associated with Williams. The association game the left played had already forced McCain to cancel his attendance at a fundraiser held at Williams’ home.
Game? The left was so worried about associations that it jumped all over McCain for something that Williams said nearly two decades earlier while ignoring or defending the Obama associations with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and a long list of other anti American radicals. Associations only matter when they are the ones Republicans have. Williams told an awful and insensitive joke, Ayers blew up the Pentagon and murdered people. McCain’s association with Williams is the one that garnered opposition from the left.
Even though the joke by Williams was distasteful he only expressed the feelings of liberals when it comes to people protecting themselves.
In Washington, DC the elected officials were discussing people exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The politicians in DC feel that carrying a weapon to protect one’s self only escalates a situation and that the best thing people can do is give criminals what they want and though you might get injured you will heal and your stuff can be replaced.
In other words, they think that if it is inevitable you might as well enjoy it.
I am obviously not a woman but I think that any woman who is faced with being raped should do what every person faced with crime should do. FIGHT. I would rather die fighting for what is right and what belongs to me than to live as a coward who gave in to criminals but this is what liberal politicians want us to do. They are so entrenched in a victim mentality they want us all to be victims.
I am not wired that way and neither are the people I know.
Claytie Williams was wrong on several levels when he made his insensitive remark in 1990.
If the weather is inevitable you prepare for it. If it is going to be hot and sunny you get sunscreen, if it is going to be cold you get a coat and if it is going to rain you carry an umbrella. In other words, you make sure you are prepared for the challenge presented.
The same applies to rape or any other crime. If you are able to exercise your Constitutional right then you have the ability, or you are prepared, in case someone tries to make you a crime victim. You might hope it does not rain but you carry an umbrella just in case. You pray never to be a crime victim but you carry a gun just in case.
But to a liberal it somehow makes more sense for a woman to be found bound, gagged, throat slit, and raped than for her to be explaining to the police how the dead criminal got a bunch of bullet holes in him.
Maybe if we are not allowed to carry a gun and become a crime victim we should be allowed to exact revenge on the politician who felt it was better for us to be harmed than to defend ourselves.
Better yet. what say we forbid any politician who thinks this way from buying a gun or obtaining a permit to carry one and we remove that politician’s protective detail. We can include Obama and we can remove the police at the Capitol who screen people entering the building.
I mean, wouldn’t it be better if these politicians just surrendered to any criminal rather than drawing a weapon or having the police draw weapons?
That might escalate the situation.
This is one of the many reasons liberalism/progressivism is a mental disorder.
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 2, 2010 Political
For the past two years we have listened to the politicians who have refused to listen to us. They ignored the will of the people and conducted a one way conversation by telling us what they were going to do, when they were going to do it, and how much we would like it. They also spelled out how great it would all be.
For the past half year or so we have been barraged with political ads and non stop campaigning as they once again spoke to us and told us why they deserved to be sent back to DC. Many of them ran from their records and many shunned new candidates as out of touch morons who did not understand how the process works. The establishment politicians from both sides have tried to disparage those who decided to, as Obama might say, get some skin in the game.
We have been forced to listen to them and they have refused to listen to us. In fact, they ignored us and now it is time for us, We the People, to have our say.
Today is election day across this nation and after months and months of listening, we get to speak. It is our turn and we will be heard.
Get out and vote. Vote your conscience and vote for candidates who espouse your points of view. Remember those politicians who refused to listen to you because today is the day they must listen to you.
Finally, you will be heard, loud and clear.
For those of you in Maryland, now is your chance to get rid of Martin O’Malley. He is a slick talking snake oil salesman who harps about his opponent raising taxes and fees while ignoring that he raised our sales tax 20%. Martin O’Malley is responsible for the largest tax increase in our history. If Robert Ehrlich’s increased fees are tantamount to rasing taxes (a position with which I, in part, agree) and mean he should not be governor then O’Malley’s largest tax increase in history disqualifies him as well.
O’Malley promised to fix the electric rate increase and it went up 75%. That was all on him. He raised taxes in many areas and he has taken a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit.
Barbara Mikulski has got to go. This Senator claims, in her ads, that they (you know, those other people in DC) like to spend your money bailing out the big guys and she thinks it should go to you. She is one of the “they” that votes to send your money to the big guys. She has voted for all the measures that spent your tax dollars on others, contrary to her claims. In one Mikulski ad she claims to be known as a cheapskate. Perhaps that is so but only when it involves her own money. When it is our money, she is quite generous with it.
Mikulski claims that “they” wanted to take away mammograms and other screenings for women but she changed the law. Insurance companies cover those things. It was the negotiations for Obamacare that removed many items and Barb claims she changed the law. No, she wrote the women’s care amendment for Obamacare so she did not change any law. She changed part of a bill. She also wrote portions dealing with birth control in vague terms to avoid objection and cloudy the issue.
Barbara Mikulski is a DC politician and she is a big tax and spend liberal. No matter how she tries to portray herself, that is what she is. The only time we ever see her is around election time. Like all other politicians, she does not listen to us but she expects us to listen to her.
The last race is in the 1st Congressional District. Frank Kratovil has not served the people of his district and he needs to be replaced by someone who holds the same values as the people living here. Andy Harris is a decent, honest conservative who will listen to the people of the District and govern with conservative values. He is a physician and a veteran and he will be a true representative of his constituents. I know Andy and he is a decent man who deserves and needs your vote.
There are plenty of local offices that have been held by Democrats for decades and they need to go as well. They have run this state into the ground. It is time to throw them out and start with a fresh group.
You folks have a chance to do right by the state and you can do so by voting the entrenched Democrats out. While we are at it, we have a chance to get rid of Steny Hoyer. Charles Lollar is a great conservative with lots of business and military experience. If you are in his district, give him a chance.
America, and particularly the people in my state of Maryland, today is the day you get to speak. Let them know that you do not appreciate them not listening to you. Let them know that you are their bosses and that they did not listen to you so you have no intention to listening to their pleas for reelection.
America, it is time to be heard.
Get out and vote.
UPDATE: Be sure to comment and tell us who you want to see elected, who you want to see defeated and why…
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 1, 2010 General
Let’s be clear up front. The rally on 8-28 was NOT a TEA Party event and it was not a political event. I get tired of the news reporting it as one of these two things (or both).
I was at the Restoring Honor Rally on 8-28. Participating in it was one of the best moments of my life as I met thousands upon thousands of people who were put out in any way imaginable but who remained pleasant and courteous. The lines for the trains were long and the wait time to get on one was nearly 2 hours and this is true for many of the outlying stations. But people stood in line, conversed with each other, moved a little bit and then stood and talked some more. I know that there is no way that all of those folks made it to the event on time and I am certain that quite a few did not make it at all but they never complained.
It was great being around so many like minded people who were interested in God and Country. People who came a long way to show support and to ensure the honor of this nation was restored. People who never got angry, who waited in lines patiently, who offered food and drink to strangers, people who helped others who needed it. These were the people who attended the rally and they came in many shapes, sizes, sexes, and colors. Yes, there were people of color there, as if that should matter. I am willing to bet that there were more people of color at this event than the one Al Sharpton put on.
I hate to mention the color aspect of it because it should not matter. No one questions a rally Sharpton holds when it has a nearly all black audience. No one questions any event that contains any minority in numbers well above the representation within the general population but let a rally consist of mostly white people and there is a racist element assigned to the crowd. Forget the fact that nearly 80% of the population is white because that does not matter. Forget the fact that there were a lot of non white people at this event because that does not matter. The only thing that matters is how quickly the MSM and the left (but I repeat myself) can scream about how angry and racist these people are.
Would it really matter if every single person in attendance was white? In other words, is it too much to ask that the crowd of people be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin?
It is a shame that the liberal talking heads painted this group as a bunch of angry white people who cannot get over a black man running the country. It is a shame because the so called angry people at this event, which was at least a half a million strong, registered NOT ONE SINGLE ARREST. The police reported NO trouble from any of them. The people at this rally were good people who do good things.
The Mall was clean when they left. People brought their own trash bags to clean up and they gave them to people who needed them. People policed up after themselves and then made sure that any stray garbage was collected and thrown away. The trash was neatly piled around the trash cans around the area. Late Saturday afternoon as the last people were leaving no one could tell that 500,000 people had occupied the area only hours earlier. Contrast this with any rally held by liberal groups and the difference is like night and day. The government is still paying the bills for the clean up of DC after the Obama coronation. The people who attended that left a mess, They soiled the Nation’s Capitol because they have no respect and they have been brought up to believe government will care for you. Don’t worry about the garbage, some gubmint employee will pick up after you.
Glenn Beck had several callers to his radio show who told stories of things that happened to them. One black woman who is sight impaired and has trouble with mobility came from out of town. She had a scooter to get around on but was having trouble. A white family helped her find the elevator to get to the train platform, helped her on the train and stayed with her throughout the entire event to make sure she was OK. This help came from a family of complete strangers and people the media wants you to believe are racists.
Then there was a call from a woman who said that when she and her husband had made their way to the area on the left of the Monument her husband asked her if his wallet was in her purse. She said that it was not. She said she only had two dollars on her and that is all they had to get around on. A man overheard her and asked if the husband’s wallet had been lost. When they told him of their situation he handed her some rolled up money and told her to take it. They both said they could not but were reassured by the man that he was doing OK and wanted them to have it. When they unrolled the money it was four $100 bills. They were very happy and hugged the man who helped them out.
Later that day the husband was called by the police. Someone found his wallet and turned it in. When he collected it all of his money, credit cards and other items were still in the wallet.
These are but a few of the stories that came out of the event. Genuine people doing the right thing. Unfortunately, none of this will matter to those who like to paint any opposition as racist and angry. But who is really angry in all of this. While painting the conservatives as angry liberals come off with some of the most vile and anger filled rants one can imagine. Actor John Cusak Tweeted:
“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS” FOX
Ed Schultz of PMSNBC described all the violent things he would like to do to those who attended the rally, those at FOX and the people who are opposed to the Obama agenda. He also called the rally participants old, white racists. Schultz is the one with anger management problems.
And though it does not relate to this event, how about Director James Cameron and his desire to call global warming deniers out in the street at high noon and shoot them? Seems to me the anger on the left is widespread.
And has there ever been a time when Keith Olbermann is not angry?
These are the people with anger management problems.
Fortunately, the people who showed up for the Restoring Honor Rally are not like that and the fact they are not is driving the left nuts. They all had their talking points and their reports were all the same but they can’t get over the fact that no one was arrested and that people were peaceful. They can’t get over the fact that they left the place cleaner than when they got there.
The world saw that the people opposed to big government and who want our honor restored are not at all like they are painted each and every day by the media. The picture on the screen and the actions of those involved cast even more doubt on the integrity of the Lame Stream Media.
As Glenn Beck stated on his TV show; “You (those attending) won.”
As for angry old white people, does the person at the top of this post look old, angry or white? Does she look like she cares about color (wouldn’t we all be better off if we did not care about it as well)?
And isn’t she one of the most adorable children you have ever seen? She is one of the faces of America. She is our future and she deserves much better than what we are passing on.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 29, 2010 Political
The usual post rally numbers game is underway and people are saying that as few as 87,000 and as many as 1 million people attended the Restoring Honor event in DC. The liberal left needs to minimize the numbers because the bigger the numbers are the weaker its position becomes.
I was at the rally and I believe there were closer to a million people than to 87,000. The New Carrollton Metro station had 8000 to 10,000 people in line when I arrived. It took nearly 2 hours to get to the train and when I did get on the train the line down below was longer than when I arrived. The entire Mall was surrounded by people and the crowd extended to the Washington Monument. The open area to the left (when looking at the Lincoln Memorial) was completely full of people and the right had densely packed groups way into the wood line (they cannot be seen from the overhead shots but they were there and they were packed in there).
The crowd was mostly white (as is the population of this country) but there were quite a few people of color in attendance. I saw many, many people who were not white and they appeared to be enjoying themselves. In fact, two women of color were walking next to me on the way to the Mall and one looked to the other and said; “Can you believe he asked me where the Al Sharpton event was? I told him over there where those 10 people are. I am going down here where everyone else is.” She was amused that the person would assume that since she was not white she would be on her way to see Sharpton rather than Beck. She got a huge laugh out of it as did everyone with whom she shared the story.
I understand that the left is upset by all the attention non liberal groups get and it needs to fight it any way it can. This is why everything is labeled racist. But minimizing the crowd at this event and repeating the same tired lines about it being very white is getting old. Whites are a majority of the population and when one considers that 95% of blacks are held captive on the Democrat plantation then it is easy to see why throngs of blacks are not at these types of events. However, rejecting the validity of an event because it has too many people of one color and not enough of another makes no sense and is very dangerous. Those who think that any rally that consists of mostly white people is not valid would have to invalidate the Al Sharpton rally that consisted mostly of black people.
Additionally, this picture of the Martin Luther King “I have a dream” speech shows the crowd to be almost all black. No whites are found in the picture of the crowd. I am sure some were there but since whites made up 60%-70% of the population (probably more like 80% back then) at that time then this crowd is disproportionately black. I find that perfectly acceptable but if we are going to use the diversity of color at an event to give it credibility or validity then MLK’s speech was not credible and not valid. I would also point out that Obama’s inauguration had huge numbers of blacks in the crowd, numbers that were hugely disproportionate to their representation in the country. Does this mean that event lacked validity?
There are plenty of pictures of the crowd and they tell a story that makes it clear more than 87,000 people were there. MLK had 200,000 to 250,000 at his speech and the Restoring Honor pictures show more people than attended King’s speech so it is logical to assume that there were more than 200,000 people there. I think that the number is 600,000 to 1 million but have no way of knowing and no agency does any official counting.
It would be interesting to know how many Metro tickets were sold. That would give a good indication of how many people were there.
Suffice it to say that the event is not well received by liberals who cannot grasp the concept of honor and who cannot see anything but racism in such events. It will drive them nuts for some time to come.
I also add that there were many people opposed to Beck having this rally in the same place where MLK had his speech and on the same date that the speech occurred. Al Sharpton was very upset about this claiming that Beck was against what MLK stood for (which Sharpton erroneously believes to be the removal of state’s rights) and challenged Beck to debate the Ground Zero Mosque issue, which Sharpton supports. This challenge came as Sharpton appeared on Geraldo Rivera’s show. So does anyone else find it ironic that Sharpton complains about the location of Beck’s rally but dismisses this concern (location) from people opposed to the mosque? Thanks to Rick for this insight.
Anyone want to wager that the people offended at Glen Beck’s choice of location for his Restoring Honor rally in DC (where Martin Luther King held his I Have A Dream speech) are the same people defending the location of the mosque at Ground Zero?
We will hear more in the days ahead…
Here are some great pictures and interesting takes on the rally:
Affirmative Action Counting for DC Events
Leftists Could Find No Racism at Restoring Honor Rally
Wrap Up and Whitewash (Plus, who is cleaner and where is the racism)
An enormous and impassioned crowd (and from the New York Times no less)
Washington Compost (the added “mostly black” to the Sharpton crowd report later, probably in response to a comment asking why it was not reported the same way as the RH Rally)
CNN article Note how many comments refer to the WHITE crowd
Why is there this assumption that MLK and his speech were a black only thing?
Never surrender, never submit.