By Robb Allen at Sharp as a Marble
Very well said indeed.
Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
The real threat of an Obama administration.
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008Obama supports the 2nd Amendment… NOT!
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008Obama on guns at Front Sight, Press
And from this letter from Obama on SayUncle
I support the re-imposition of the ban on the sale of assault weapons that expired in September 2004 because I believe these guns are used primarily for criminal rather than sporting intent. I also support requiring gun manufacturers to install child safety locks on all of their products.
Used primarily for criminal rather than sporting intent? Even the FBI disagrees with that statement.
Do they really think we’re that stupid?
Monday, September 8th, 2008Or is it a refelction of their own stupidity?
Excerpt from the 2008 Democratic Platform Report (DNC 08-13-08):
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
I find it amazing that the democrats can contradict themselves so much in one paragraph.
Let’s look at this sentence by sentence.
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.
To the Dem’s the right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than american tradition. Notice how they changed the verbage on the second half of the sentance from keep and bear to keep and use? I don’t believe for a second that this is a typo. There is a HUGE difference between “keep and bear” and “keep and use”. The 2nd amendment says “keep and bear”, ’nuff said.
We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation,
Yeah, and the Dem’s get to determine what is reasonable? Give me a break.
Definition of the word reasonable
rea·son·a·ble /’ri
z?n?b?l, ‘rizn?-/ -adjective
| 1. | agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman. |
| 2. | not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms. |
| 3. | moderate, esp. in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap. |
| 4. | endowed with reason. |
| 5. | capable of rational behavior, decision, etc. |
hmm, let’s see, I don’t know of any liberal democrat that meets that definition at all.
Maybe the sentance should have started like this. “We Believe that the right to own firearms is subject to illogical, knee-jerk reaction, emotionally inspired regulation.” Because that’s what it really is.
but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.
Really? I doubt it. But even if I were to concede that some things may work in Cheyann that don’t work in Chicago, why the hell would the Federal government step in. They have state and local governments to handle that, so long as they themselves don’t violate the constitution.
We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements -
“Commonsense” is very similar to “reasonable”. In the same way that I can’t think of any liberal democrats that have are reasonable, I can’t think of any that actually have more than an ounce of commonsense, because if they did, the gun-rights would be a non-issue.
like closing the gun show loophole
There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. What they are really talking about is making it illegal for ANYONE other than a FFL from transfering a weapon. No private transfers period. The impact of this is a huge infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, let alone basic property rights (but that’s a whole ‘nother subject).
improving our background check system,
Improving the background check system? For god’s sake, how hard is it to run a NICS check? I’m interested to see in what they have in mind here. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that they want to track more information about the citizens of the country. And don’t get me started on that.
and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals
Reinstating the assault weapons ban? First off it didn’t really ban any assault weapons that weren’t already banned. Second, the Brady bill did absolutely nothing to stop or reduce crime. The only thing it did was infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. The CDC’s (Center For Disease Control) own studies even show there is absolutely no evidence that the Brady Bill did anything to reduce crime.
Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
I just about choked when I read this sentence. They actually believe that 2nd amendment rights and safety are mutually exclusive. IMO, the only way we can be sure to keep our communities and our children safe IS to protect the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. For that matter protect ALL of our civil rights. Compromising our civil rights is neither responsible, nor respectful of our differing views. Besides, if they actually respected the 2nd amendment, there wouldn’t be a differing view.
Anyway, that’s only one little tidbit from the platform. We could go on for days about the rest of the crap that is the plaform of the democratic party, but this is a gun blog.
-Thomas
I am not a one issue voter!
Thursday, September 4th, 2008There are allot of issues that I’m concerned about. The economy, the war on terror, border security, and property rights are right up near the top of my list of the most important issues facing us today.
But in truth, there is one issue, more specifically the candidates position on that issue, that tells me just about everything I need to know about a candidate. Or at least everything I need to know to keep the candidate in the running for my vote. That issue is gun control.
Any candidate that believes that by restricting your constitutionally recognized god given right to keep and bear arms that somehow society is a safer place is sorely mistaken and cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted because they believe we are not capable of taking care of ourselves. No, wait, its not even that innocent. They dont want us to be able to take care of ourselves. They want you to be dependent on the government. The more dependent you are on the government, the more power the government has, and the less freedom you have. If a candidate is not on the right side of gun rights, they probably are not on the right side of all the other issues Im concerned with. If a candidate does not support gun rights and the right of a person to defend themselves, their family and their property, their core values are fundamentally flawed.
The U.S. Constitution is not a cafeteria menu that you get to pick and choose your favorite dishes from (Ill take a free speech and a side of separation of church and state please), it is the rule book for government. And as such the government must follow it explicitly. You cant take an oath of office to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, and then turn around and trample one of its amendments. To do so puts you in violation of your oath.
It seems more and more common that new legislation is created and thrown at the wall to see if it will stick. Instead of following the constitution when writing legislation, it will be written to specifically challenge the authority of the constitution. And once voted into law, it can take months if not years or decades to get it overturned by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile us regular citizens have to bend over, and take it with a smile or else. And now, even when the Supreme Court declares a gun ban unconstitutional (i.e. DC gun ban) and specifically ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, other government officials publicly announce that it doesnt apply to their laws.
Lets get something straight. Laws dont stop criminals. Laws simply allow us to punish criminals for their crimes by temporarily removing them from society, and if necessary, permanently. And in doing so, we hope that it will detour crime. Now, lets take murder for example. A person who commits murder already has little or no concern for the law. The murderer is never going to stop and think, god I better not use a gun, I might go to jail, maybe I better just use a knife or a baseball bat. Nope, thats just not how it happens. Criminals target potential victims who they perceive as weak, are not likely to fight back or are incapable of protecting themselves. The fact is, gun control doesnt work. It doesnt reduce crime. It just increases the victim pool for the criminals to choose from.
I think Robert A. Heinlein said it best An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life.
-Thomas
Oh how I wish it was Thompson instead of McCain
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008I havent been able to catch much of the Republican Convention so far, but I was able to watch Fred Thompsons speech on replay last night. Like the Guinness commercials, all I could say was Brilliant!. If Fred had only got started a little earlier in the primaries, my guess is that things would be a lot different right now. I absolutely love his state the way it is with absolutely no bullshit communication method. But unfortunately, hes not our candidate, so Ill just have to let it go.
However McCain isn’t all that bad. Despite his less than perfect gun rights record, he recently made his position clear that he does not believe in gun control. Now the question is do I believe him. Well I’m more inclined to believe McCain on this subject than BHO. Especially since BHO specificly reaffirmed his hatred/fear of so called assault weapons in his nomination acceptance speach last thursday. Add to that the fact that McCain has chosen a very pro-gun rights Gov Palin as his running mate, at least shows some he’s willing to back up his statements.
-Thomas