Law enforcement officials in Lewis County, WA are refusing to enforce parts of the state’s new background check law, which stems from ballot initiative I-594 that passed in November.
The strict new law forces anyone conducting a private transfer of a firearm to undergo a background check. This includes gun shows, online purchases and gifts.
But Lewis County officials are saying they will only prosecute those who break the law intentionally.
“We wanted to make sure that the citizens of Lewis County knew that we weren’t looking to make criminals out of ordinary citizens,” explained prosecutor Jonathan Meyer. “We’re not going to try to trap citizens into transferring a gun to a friend and then try to nab them on a violation of 594. That’s not what we’re interested in.”
Meyer and Sherriff Rob Sanza are the first elected leaders in Washington State to publicly state that they will not enforce the new law. But they are far from the only officials in the country who have taken public stands against gun control laws.
According to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), there are at least 484 sheriffs around the nation who oppose federal gun control in one form or another.
In Colorado, all but seven of the state’s sixty-two sheriffs formed a coalition and sued the state government after the state legislature passed an extremist gun law in 2013. (The suit was thrown out.)
In New York State, several sheriffs have publicly criticized the SAFE Act, the state’s hardline gun control bill. Sheriff Tony Desmond of Scoharie County, New York, has even said explicitly that he intends to ignore the law.
“If you have a weapon, which under the SAFE Act is considered illegal, I don’t look at it as being illegal just because someone said it was,” he said.
Other sheriffs in the state are complying with the law, but only with great reluctance.
“I feel as an elected official and a chief law enforcement officer of the county it would be irresponsible for me to say, ‘I’m not going to enforce a law I personally disagree with,’” said Sheriff Richard Devlin of Otsego County.
“[But] I won’t do anything as far as confiscating weapons. We’re not checking out registrations. People that are lawfully using a firearm for target shooting, we’re not bothering those people.”
Monday, December 22, 2014
Monday, December 15, 2014
Background Checks Initiative Launches In Nevada…NRA Sitting Out Again
Gun control groups are launching another billionaire-backed campaign to expand background checks in Nevada, the latest in their efforts to roll back gun rights at the state level. And just like in Washington State, the NRA is sitting on the sidelines.
Last week, the Nevada background checks initiative cleared a major hurdle when the Nevada Secretary of State certified that it’s supporters had collected enough signatures to get the background checks measure on the ballot for 2016.
This decision came despite evidence submitted by a local gun rights group citing “numerous irregularities and rules violations” in the petitions. One group, Nevadans for States Gun Rights, claimed that the gun control lobby had missed deadlines in providing the signatures and filing some of their paperwork.
The President of Nevadans for State Gun Rights, Don Turner, wants to challenge the Secretary of State’s ruling in court, but he does not have enough resources to do so. He said in a recent interview that the NRA has been staying out of the fight.
“There's an old saying that, 'If you want to be a big dog, you've got to get off the porch,'" Turner said. “Right now, [the NRA] is just watching.”
A gun politics expert, Robert Spitzer, says that the NRA doesn’t think it can compete with the enemy’s resources in Nevada.
“[The NRA] may be doing a bit of political triage in terms of how and where they allocate their resources,” Spitzer said. "I have a feeling the NRA thinks they could be bled dry”.
Reports say that the anti-gun lobby might pursue similar initiatives to the ones in Nevada and Washington state in at least twelve other states.
Last week, the Nevada background checks initiative cleared a major hurdle when the Nevada Secretary of State certified that it’s supporters had collected enough signatures to get the background checks measure on the ballot for 2016.
This decision came despite evidence submitted by a local gun rights group citing “numerous irregularities and rules violations” in the petitions. One group, Nevadans for States Gun Rights, claimed that the gun control lobby had missed deadlines in providing the signatures and filing some of their paperwork.
The President of Nevadans for State Gun Rights, Don Turner, wants to challenge the Secretary of State’s ruling in court, but he does not have enough resources to do so. He said in a recent interview that the NRA has been staying out of the fight.
“There's an old saying that, 'If you want to be a big dog, you've got to get off the porch,'" Turner said. “Right now, [the NRA] is just watching.”
A gun politics expert, Robert Spitzer, says that the NRA doesn’t think it can compete with the enemy’s resources in Nevada.
“[The NRA] may be doing a bit of political triage in terms of how and where they allocate their resources,” Spitzer said. "I have a feeling the NRA thinks they could be bled dry”.
Reports say that the anti-gun lobby might pursue similar initiatives to the ones in Nevada and Washington state in at least twelve other states.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
New York State Deems 278 Gun Owners Too “Unstable” For Firearms
New York State is set to confiscate firearms from nearly 300 individuals who the state has judged to be “mentally unfit”, reports say.
New York’s SAFE Act gun control law allows the state to confiscate firearms from people who health professionals believe are too dangerous to own weapons. The law does not require health workers to inform the individual before reporting them to the state.
Health professionals have already reported 38,718 “at risk” individuals since the law was enacted in 2013. Of these individuals, 278 currently have pistol permits, the Syracuse Post Standard recently found.
Several of these gun owners have already been forced to surrender their weapons. Although the state won’t say how many confiscations have taken place, the Post-Standard found evidence of at least four.
Other confiscations have reported elsewhere, including one where a college librarian was forced to surrender his weapons simply because he had briefly been prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
Most people agree that dangerously insane individuals should not have access to firearms, but experts have also said that the New York’s “no-gun” database far exceeds the actual number of mentally ill people in the state.
Sam Tsemberis, the former director of New York City’s involuntary hospitalization program for homeless and dangerous people, said in November: “[38,000 at risk individuals] seems extraordinarily high to me. Assumed dangerousness is a far cry from actual dangerousness”.
New York’s SAFE Act gun control law allows the state to confiscate firearms from people who health professionals believe are too dangerous to own weapons. The law does not require health workers to inform the individual before reporting them to the state.
Health professionals have already reported 38,718 “at risk” individuals since the law was enacted in 2013. Of these individuals, 278 currently have pistol permits, the Syracuse Post Standard recently found.
Several of these gun owners have already been forced to surrender their weapons. Although the state won’t say how many confiscations have taken place, the Post-Standard found evidence of at least four.
Other confiscations have reported elsewhere, including one where a college librarian was forced to surrender his weapons simply because he had briefly been prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
Most people agree that dangerously insane individuals should not have access to firearms, but experts have also said that the New York’s “no-gun” database far exceeds the actual number of mentally ill people in the state.
Sam Tsemberis, the former director of New York City’s involuntary hospitalization program for homeless and dangerous people, said in November: “[38,000 at risk individuals] seems extraordinarily high to me. Assumed dangerousness is a far cry from actual dangerousness”.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Black Gun Owners Defend White-Owned Business In Ferguson, MO
A group of black gun owners in Ferguson, Missouri have banded together to protect a white-owned gas station from looters.
Armed with handguns and an AR-15, they stood guard over the store during the protests in August and again last week.
Because of their bravery, the gas station is the only store on its block that hasn’t been destroyed or boarded up. It has stayed open and undamaged throughout the rioting.
“We would have burned to the ground many times over if it weren’t for them,” storeowner Doug Merello told a reporter.
The armed citizens, all former employees of the gas station, are not being paid for their efforts. They are risking their lives simply out of loyalty for their former boss.
“He’s a nice dude, he’s helped us a lot,” said one of the volunteers, named R.J.
The selflessness of these men should be a national news story, as the Free Thought Project has pointed out. Yet most news outlets have ignored it completely.
The media goes to great lengths to avoid any story that makes gun owners look good, and this story does exactly that. As the Free Thought Project puts it:
Armed with handguns and an AR-15, they stood guard over the store during the protests in August and again last week.
Because of their bravery, the gas station is the only store on its block that hasn’t been destroyed or boarded up. It has stayed open and undamaged throughout the rioting.
“We would have burned to the ground many times over if it weren’t for them,” storeowner Doug Merello told a reporter.
The armed citizens, all former employees of the gas station, are not being paid for their efforts. They are risking their lives simply out of loyalty for their former boss.
“He’s a nice dude, he’s helped us a lot,” said one of the volunteers, named R.J.
The selflessness of these men should be a national news story, as the Free Thought Project has pointed out. Yet most news outlets have ignored it completely.
The media goes to great lengths to avoid any story that makes gun owners look good, and this story does exactly that. As the Free Thought Project puts it:
“[This story] shows the true power of people policing themselves. Responsibly arming themselves and practicing their second amendment rights, these 4 men were able to do what thousands of national guardsmen, police and FBI were unable to do, prevent looting and damage to property.”
Monday, November 24, 2014
Newspaper Calls For Full Repeal Of Second Amendment
Responding to last week’s shooting at Florida State University, a local newspaper columnist called for the full repeal of the Second Amendment. Gerald Ensley wrote in the Tallahassee Democrat:
The Supreme Court struck down this argument when it ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms anywhere under federal jurisdiction.
Ensley also claims that guns should be banned because the US is the “far and away leader in gun homicides.”
Yet violent crime in the United States has been plummeting for decades. The FBI’s most recent statistics show that murders have fallen most dramatically, to their lowest number since 1968. Property crimes have also decreased every year for eleven straight years.
Meanwhile, statistics show that gun bans in other countries have repeatedly failed to lower crime. As Breitbart.com notes, Britain banned nearly all handguns in the 1990s. Since then, it has become the most violent country in Europe.
Like most progressives, Ensley has no time for factual arguments or thoughtful debate. But at least he admits that the true purpose of “gun control” is to ban guns altogether.
“I'm not talking about gun control. I'm not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amendment the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”Ensley’s argument is riddled with factual errors and leaps in logic. He claims that the Second Amendment has been “misinterpreted” and that it does not ensure private gun ownership — only gun ownership for a “well-regulated militia”.
The Supreme Court struck down this argument when it ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms anywhere under federal jurisdiction.
Ensley also claims that guns should be banned because the US is the “far and away leader in gun homicides.”
Yet violent crime in the United States has been plummeting for decades. The FBI’s most recent statistics show that murders have fallen most dramatically, to their lowest number since 1968. Property crimes have also decreased every year for eleven straight years.
Meanwhile, statistics show that gun bans in other countries have repeatedly failed to lower crime. As Breitbart.com notes, Britain banned nearly all handguns in the 1990s. Since then, it has become the most violent country in Europe.
Like most progressives, Ensley has no time for factual arguments or thoughtful debate. But at least he admits that the true purpose of “gun control” is to ban guns altogether.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Poll: Guns’ Popularity On The Rise
The percentage of Americans who believe that having a gun at home improves security has almost doubled over the last decade. According to a recent Gallup poll, 63 percent of individuals surveyed said that they felt safer having a gun at home. Only 35 percent of respondents said the same in 2000.
This surge in support for gun ownership applied across the entire political spectrum, although support grew by 37 percent among Republicans and only 13 percent among Democrats. Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to have a gun in their home.
According to Gallup, these changing attitudes show that guns are “taking on a more protective role than they have in the past.”
In other words, more and more Americans are seeing guns exactly as they should — not as something scary but as something useful.
This surge in support for gun ownership applied across the entire political spectrum, although support grew by 37 percent among Republicans and only 13 percent among Democrats. Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to have a gun in their home.
According to Gallup, these changing attitudes show that guns are “taking on a more protective role than they have in the past.”
In other words, more and more Americans are seeing guns exactly as they should — not as something scary but as something useful.
Friday, November 14, 2014
The Price Of The NRA’s Defeatism
The NRA’s failure to mount serious opposition to I-594 in Washington is looking increasingly like a real miscalculation, if not a complete abdication of duty.
In the wake of their victory in Washington State, gun control groups continue to announce plans to pass universal background checks bills in states across the country.
This means that the door is now open to gun registries — and possibly even even gun confiscation — in places like Nevada and Maine.
The NRA devoted next to nothing protecting gun owners in Washington State, possibly because they didn’t think they could win. The latest figures show that only $600,000 was spent debunking the pro-gun control ads, about six percent of what the gun control groups spent promoting I-594.
Yet even without the NRA’s help, gun rights supporters won 40% of the vote in Washington. How much more would they have won with real support behind them?
Instead of fighting against gun control in Washington, the NRA spent millions this year on behalf of RINOs and career politicians who were virtually assured of victory.
They spent hundreds of thousands on Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, who won by sixteen points. They spent nearly a million on David Perdue in Georgia, who won by eight points. They spent a $1.3 million on Tom Cotton in Arkansas, who won by twenty-six points.
Mitch McConnell and Tom Cotton didn’t need the millions that the NRA gave them. Washington gun owners did.
In the wake of their victory in Washington State, gun control groups continue to announce plans to pass universal background checks bills in states across the country.
This means that the door is now open to gun registries — and possibly even even gun confiscation — in places like Nevada and Maine.
The NRA devoted next to nothing protecting gun owners in Washington State, possibly because they didn’t think they could win. The latest figures show that only $600,000 was spent debunking the pro-gun control ads, about six percent of what the gun control groups spent promoting I-594.
Yet even without the NRA’s help, gun rights supporters won 40% of the vote in Washington. How much more would they have won with real support behind them?
Instead of fighting against gun control in Washington, the NRA spent millions this year on behalf of RINOs and career politicians who were virtually assured of victory.
They spent hundreds of thousands on Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, who won by sixteen points. They spent nearly a million on David Perdue in Georgia, who won by eight points. They spent a $1.3 million on Tom Cotton in Arkansas, who won by twenty-six points.
Mitch McConnell and Tom Cotton didn’t need the millions that the NRA gave them. Washington gun owners did.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Mitch McConnell Rules Out Government Shutdown
Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell is already giving ground to Democrats, and he hasn’t even taken over as Senate Majority Leader.
Last week, he told reporters: “There will be no government shutdowns and no default on the national debt.” He also said that he “hopes to” work with Obama on trade legislation and that there would be no full scale repeal of Obamacare.
These capitulations make no sense, even for a political careerist like McConnell.
Last week’s elections proved that Republicans paid no political price at all for shutting down the government in 2013—no matter what Karl Rove and the insider establishment will tell you.
Second, the threat of another shutdown was one of McConnell’s strongest bargaining chips. Even if you don’t think a shutdown is a good idea, you have to admit that conservatives used the shutdown to extract key concessions from the left.
Leave it to Mitch McConnell to use a sweeping victory as an excuse to give in to his opponents.
Last week, he told reporters: “There will be no government shutdowns and no default on the national debt.” He also said that he “hopes to” work with Obama on trade legislation and that there would be no full scale repeal of Obamacare.
These capitulations make no sense, even for a political careerist like McConnell.
Last week’s elections proved that Republicans paid no political price at all for shutting down the government in 2013—no matter what Karl Rove and the insider establishment will tell you.
Second, the threat of another shutdown was one of McConnell’s strongest bargaining chips. Even if you don’t think a shutdown is a good idea, you have to admit that conservatives used the shutdown to extract key concessions from the left.
Leave it to Mitch McConnell to use a sweeping victory as an excuse to give in to his opponents.
Friday, November 7, 2014
Background Checks Bill Passes In Washington State…Where Was The NRA?
Voters in the state of Washington passed a universal background check law on Tuesday by a vote of 60% to 40%. The law will require background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.
Having notched this victory, the gun control lobby is now planning to pass similar voter referendums in a number of other states.
For some reason, the NRA mostly sat this one out, spending less than ten percent of what the anti-gunners devoted to the effort and only hiring two employees in Washington. In August, a Washington state blogger said that only half of gun owners in the state had even heard of what was going on.
Now that the measure has passed, gun groups around the country are finally starting to notice. The Virginia Citizens Defense league posted a statement warning that the bill could lead to a universal registration of all guns, with “confiscation being the end goal of the scheme.” They are calling for “a massive education effort for both gun owners and non-gun owners alike.”
But it is already too late for gun owners in Washington State, and the national gun control interests have been handed an important victory.
The NRA should be taking gun control head on — not handing victory to the enemy by failing to show up in the first place.
Having notched this victory, the gun control lobby is now planning to pass similar voter referendums in a number of other states.
For some reason, the NRA mostly sat this one out, spending less than ten percent of what the anti-gunners devoted to the effort and only hiring two employees in Washington. In August, a Washington state blogger said that only half of gun owners in the state had even heard of what was going on.
Now that the measure has passed, gun groups around the country are finally starting to notice. The Virginia Citizens Defense league posted a statement warning that the bill could lead to a universal registration of all guns, with “confiscation being the end goal of the scheme.” They are calling for “a massive education effort for both gun owners and non-gun owners alike.”
But it is already too late for gun owners in Washington State, and the national gun control interests have been handed an important victory.
The NRA should be taking gun control head on — not handing victory to the enemy by failing to show up in the first place.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
New York’s “No-Gun” List Balloons To 34,500 Names
The state of New York keeps a database of individuals that it considers too mentally ill to own a gun. Recently released figures indicate that the list has grown to a massive size and includes many people who pose no threat to the public.
Figures published last month indicate that the registry includes 34,500 people. Mental health doctors say that this figure far exceeds the number of people who actually have dangerous mental illnesses in the state.
“That seems extraordinarily high to me,” said Sam Tsemberis, the former director of New York City’s involuntary hospitalization program for homeless and dangerous people. “Assumed dangerousness is a far cry from actual dangerousness.”
The state of New York requires doctors, psychologists and social workers to notify county officials about patients who they believe should be prohibited from owning firearms. The decision for who qualifies for gun confiscation appears to be completely up to the doctor.
There have already been at least two cases where guns were confiscated from law-abiding citizens.
In 2013, a college librarian in Amherst, NY was forced to surrender his weapons despite no criminal record or indications of mental instability. Why? Because he had briefly been prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
Another individual, who remains anonymous, also had his pistol permit revoked after the state found out that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety. He had no criminal record or history of violence.
Now it appears that thousands of other peaceful citizens could face similar consequences.
Figures published last month indicate that the registry includes 34,500 people. Mental health doctors say that this figure far exceeds the number of people who actually have dangerous mental illnesses in the state.
“That seems extraordinarily high to me,” said Sam Tsemberis, the former director of New York City’s involuntary hospitalization program for homeless and dangerous people. “Assumed dangerousness is a far cry from actual dangerousness.”
The state of New York requires doctors, psychologists and social workers to notify county officials about patients who they believe should be prohibited from owning firearms. The decision for who qualifies for gun confiscation appears to be completely up to the doctor.
There have already been at least two cases where guns were confiscated from law-abiding citizens.
In 2013, a college librarian in Amherst, NY was forced to surrender his weapons despite no criminal record or indications of mental instability. Why? Because he had briefly been prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
Another individual, who remains anonymous, also had his pistol permit revoked after the state found out that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety. He had no criminal record or history of violence.
Now it appears that thousands of other peaceful citizens could face similar consequences.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Alan Gottlieb Takes A Slice Of SAF Donations
Looks like background check sellout Alan Gottlieb is turning quite a profit for himself promoting his initiative out in Washington:
“While tax documents show Gottlieb collects $72,000 in pay annually between Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee, millions of dollars raised by those nonprofits have gone to Gottlieb’s for-profit direct-mail business, Merril Associates. According to tax records nonprofits must file, Second Amendment Foundation paid Merril Associates $4.1 million between 2002 and 2012, while Citizens Committee paid the company nearly $1.1 million in that time.”
“While tax documents show Gottlieb collects $72,000 in pay annually between Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee, millions of dollars raised by those nonprofits have gone to Gottlieb’s for-profit direct-mail business, Merril Associates. According to tax records nonprofits must file, Second Amendment Foundation paid Merril Associates $4.1 million between 2002 and 2012, while Citizens Committee paid the company nearly $1.1 million in that time.”
Monday, October 20, 2014
Democrats: Gun Groups, Not Obama, To Blame For Spread Of Ebola
Liberal commentators and Democrats are blaming gun rights supporters for the spread of Ebola. Seriously.
Their so-called logic goes like this:
Republicans blocked Vivek Murthy’s nomination for Surgeon General due to his extreme anti-gun views. If there were a surgeon general in place, he would be helping to stop the spread of Ebola. Therefore, gun owners and conservatives are to blame for Ebola.
This line of “thinking” has been repeated ad nauseam throughout the liberal media over the past few weeks. First, MSNBC reporter Krystal Ball wrote: “Thanks to NRA power and Senate cowardice, we are left with no surgeon general during a time when we have Ebola arriving on our shores.”
Then, socialist filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted “did u know we don’t have a perm Surgeon General during this crisis? Obama nom Dr Vivek Murthy 1 yr ago but the NRA & Republics have blocked him”.
Now Democrat lawmakers are taking up the argument. Last week, twenty-four House Democrats issued a statement calling for Murthy’s immediate confirmation. Plenty of other commentators and propagandists have also issued statements linking gun rights advocates with Ebola.
But this whole argument has more than a few “inconsistencies.”
Republicans opposed Murthy’s nominations for many reasons beyond his opposition to gun rights. At 36, Murthy has very limited medical experience. He is best known for founding a public relations group called “Doctors for Obama” (now “Doctors for America”), which exists mostly to advocate for Obamacare.
Also, Democrats as well as Republicans killed Murthy’s nomination – eight to ten Democrats said they planned to vote against him.
Finally, there is almost nothing Murthy could actually do about Ebola. The Surgeon General is mostly a figurehead with only a few real responsibilities. The interim Surgeon General who is currently in place has been virtually invisible during the crisis.
The real reason that liberals are blaming gun owners for Ebola is that they are trying to distract from President Obama’s many failures in his handling of the epidemic. Instead of doing something actually productive – like closing off flights from affected countries in Africa – Democrats are using the threat of Ebola to play politics.
Their so-called logic goes like this:
Republicans blocked Vivek Murthy’s nomination for Surgeon General due to his extreme anti-gun views. If there were a surgeon general in place, he would be helping to stop the spread of Ebola. Therefore, gun owners and conservatives are to blame for Ebola.
This line of “thinking” has been repeated ad nauseam throughout the liberal media over the past few weeks. First, MSNBC reporter Krystal Ball wrote: “Thanks to NRA power and Senate cowardice, we are left with no surgeon general during a time when we have Ebola arriving on our shores.”
Then, socialist filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted “did u know we don’t have a perm Surgeon General during this crisis? Obama nom Dr Vivek Murthy 1 yr ago but the NRA & Republics have blocked him”.
Now Democrat lawmakers are taking up the argument. Last week, twenty-four House Democrats issued a statement calling for Murthy’s immediate confirmation. Plenty of other commentators and propagandists have also issued statements linking gun rights advocates with Ebola.
But this whole argument has more than a few “inconsistencies.”
Republicans opposed Murthy’s nominations for many reasons beyond his opposition to gun rights. At 36, Murthy has very limited medical experience. He is best known for founding a public relations group called “Doctors for Obama” (now “Doctors for America”), which exists mostly to advocate for Obamacare.
Also, Democrats as well as Republicans killed Murthy’s nomination – eight to ten Democrats said they planned to vote against him.
Finally, there is almost nothing Murthy could actually do about Ebola. The Surgeon General is mostly a figurehead with only a few real responsibilities. The interim Surgeon General who is currently in place has been virtually invisible during the crisis.
The real reason that liberals are blaming gun owners for Ebola is that they are trying to distract from President Obama’s many failures in his handling of the epidemic. Instead of doing something actually productive – like closing off flights from affected countries in Africa – Democrats are using the threat of Ebola to play politics.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Allison Grimes’ Pro-Gun Act Exposed In Campaign Memos
Allison Lundergan Grimes has been making a big deal out of her support for guns throughout her Senate campaign, even releasing an ad where she shoots clay pigeons while responding to attacks from Mitch McConnell. But new campaign briefings obtained by the Weekly Standard reveal that Grimes’ support of gun rights is nothing more than scripted political theater.
The briefings, which were prepared for Grimes in advance of private meetings with the Courier – Journal and Kentucky Enquirer, begin by instructing her to emphasize her differences with President Obama on gun issues by saying things like: “we shouldn’t be banning guns based on things like their grips as a bill supported by Obama tried to do.”
After playing up her phony pro-gun stance, the memos tell her to back down — “ONLY IF PUSHED” — on issues such as “expanding the background check system” and “closing the gun show loophole”. In other words, Grimes’ staff is telling her to say one thing to the media while telling voters something else entirely.
Luckily for Grimes, her opponent is just as big a phony on guns as she is. McConnell, despite flaunting a rifle at the CPAC conference (and having the backing of the Washington insiders in the NRA), has voted for a long list of gun control bills over the years.
It looks like Kentucky gun owners are left without a good option this November.
The briefings, which were prepared for Grimes in advance of private meetings with the Courier – Journal and Kentucky Enquirer, begin by instructing her to emphasize her differences with President Obama on gun issues by saying things like: “we shouldn’t be banning guns based on things like their grips as a bill supported by Obama tried to do.”
After playing up her phony pro-gun stance, the memos tell her to back down — “ONLY IF PUSHED” — on issues such as “expanding the background check system” and “closing the gun show loophole”. In other words, Grimes’ staff is telling her to say one thing to the media while telling voters something else entirely.
Luckily for Grimes, her opponent is just as big a phony on guns as she is. McConnell, despite flaunting a rifle at the CPAC conference (and having the backing of the Washington insiders in the NRA), has voted for a long list of gun control bills over the years.
It looks like Kentucky gun owners are left without a good option this November.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Battle Over Background Checks At Gun Rights Policy Conference
A heated dispute over background checks erupted at the Gun Rights Policy Conference last week between Second Amendment Foundation leader Alan Gottlieb and gun activist Jeff Knox.
Knox, the son of gun rights pioneer Neal Knox, challenged Gottlieb over an initiative that Gottlieb is supporting on this year’s ballot in Washington State (I-591). The measure, which Gottlieb wrote, prohibits background checks in the state “unless a uniform national standard is required”.
As Knox pointed out at the GRPC, this language leaves the door wide open for a federal background check system. After Knox asked Gottlieb to defend this portion of the bill, Gottlieb launched into a full-scale support of background checks.
Gottlieb’s argument – which he has also made in the past – is that gun rights supporters should embrace background checks because they are inevitable. Pointing to polls stating that a majority of voters support background checks, he says that gun rights supporters are only hurting themselves by opposing them.
Gottlieb’s position infuriates no-compromise gun rights activists, who see any background check legislation as the first step on a slippery slope toward a federal gun registry. At the gun rights policy conference, Knox was joined by a chorus of audience members in ripping into Gottlieb’s argument.
But Gottlieb’s support of background checks also raises questions about his true motives in promoting I-591. Since he is such a big believer on background checks, why is he sponsoring a ballot initiative that theoretically bans them in the state of Washington? Why go to the trouble of writing and promoting a law that you fundamentally don’t agree with?
The answer is simple: money. Gottlieb is promoting I-591 not because he cares so much about banning background checks – clearly he doesn’t – but because he sees the law as an opportunity to conduct fundraising for his gun rights groups. So far, he claims to have nearly $1 million.
How much of that has he spent fighting for gun rights, and how much has he kept for himself? Is there any purpose to I-591 other than lining Alan Gottlieb’s pockets?
Knox, the son of gun rights pioneer Neal Knox, challenged Gottlieb over an initiative that Gottlieb is supporting on this year’s ballot in Washington State (I-591). The measure, which Gottlieb wrote, prohibits background checks in the state “unless a uniform national standard is required”.
As Knox pointed out at the GRPC, this language leaves the door wide open for a federal background check system. After Knox asked Gottlieb to defend this portion of the bill, Gottlieb launched into a full-scale support of background checks.
Gottlieb’s argument – which he has also made in the past – is that gun rights supporters should embrace background checks because they are inevitable. Pointing to polls stating that a majority of voters support background checks, he says that gun rights supporters are only hurting themselves by opposing them.
Gottlieb’s position infuriates no-compromise gun rights activists, who see any background check legislation as the first step on a slippery slope toward a federal gun registry. At the gun rights policy conference, Knox was joined by a chorus of audience members in ripping into Gottlieb’s argument.
But Gottlieb’s support of background checks also raises questions about his true motives in promoting I-591. Since he is such a big believer on background checks, why is he sponsoring a ballot initiative that theoretically bans them in the state of Washington? Why go to the trouble of writing and promoting a law that you fundamentally don’t agree with?
The answer is simple: money. Gottlieb is promoting I-591 not because he cares so much about banning background checks – clearly he doesn’t – but because he sees the law as an opportunity to conduct fundraising for his gun rights groups. So far, he claims to have nearly $1 million.
How much of that has he spent fighting for gun rights, and how much has he kept for himself? Is there any purpose to I-591 other than lining Alan Gottlieb’s pockets?
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Build Your Own Rifle At Home
In a new development that is sure to anger the gun grabbers, a California company has begun selling a desktop machine that lets consumers manufacture untraceable guns in the comfort of their own homes.
The “Ghost Gunner,” which turns easily obtainable unfinished parts into fully functional rifles, is currently available for $1,399 through a company called Defense Distributed. Defense Distributed has already sold two hundred and fifty of the machines and raised the price by $400 to keep up with demand.
The founder of Defense Distributed, Cody Wilson, is a gun rights activist and the world’s “most famous digital gunsmith”. Wilson already created the first 3D printed pistol and rifle, and now he is working to make homemade gun technology widely available.
Wilson calls his machine the “Ghost Gunner” in reference to the name that gun control politicians have given untraceable firearms. The machine relies on a computer numerically controlled (CNC) mill to create a homemade lower receiver for an AR-15. The rest of the AR-15 can be easily ordered from online gun shops.
A bill to ban these weapons passed the California State Senate earlier this year before being vetoed last week by Governor Jerry Brown.
The “Ghost Gunner,” which turns easily obtainable unfinished parts into fully functional rifles, is currently available for $1,399 through a company called Defense Distributed. Defense Distributed has already sold two hundred and fifty of the machines and raised the price by $400 to keep up with demand.
The founder of Defense Distributed, Cody Wilson, is a gun rights activist and the world’s “most famous digital gunsmith”. Wilson already created the first 3D printed pistol and rifle, and now he is working to make homemade gun technology widely available.
Wilson calls his machine the “Ghost Gunner” in reference to the name that gun control politicians have given untraceable firearms. The machine relies on a computer numerically controlled (CNC) mill to create a homemade lower receiver for an AR-15. The rest of the AR-15 can be easily ordered from online gun shops.
A bill to ban these weapons passed the California State Senate earlier this year before being vetoed last week by Governor Jerry Brown.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Washington, D.C. And The Folly Of Gun Registration
Washington D.C. has the strictest gun registration laws in the United States, forcing gun owners to re-register their guns with the city every three years or face jail time and heavy fines. Each time that a gun owner re-registers his weapons, he has to pay a fee of $13 for per gun.
As if that weren’t enough, the DC police department is now forcing local gun-owners to re-submit their fingerprints (and pay an additional $35 fingerprinting fee) as part of the re-registration process —despite the fact that each of them has already been fingerprinted.
And why is this?
The city is saying that it somehow “lost” the original fingerprints. That’s right —having already fingerprinted as many D.C. gun owners as possible, the city’s police are forcing the same people to undergo the process a second time, at their own expense, simply because it misplaced the original fingerprints.
Can everyone agree that D.C.’s gun registration program has been an utter failure?
Even if gun registration were Constitutional (which it isn’t), the incompetence of the D.C. police is proof that the government lacks the basic ability to administer an effective gun registration database.
The D.C. program was already failing miserably, even before it was revealed that the D.C. government had lost everyone’s fingerprints. Despite the threat of jail time and thousands of dollars in fines, barely a thousand guns have been re-registered since the re-registration policy was instituted in December 2013.
If the police are unable to administer it, and the people aren’t willing to participate in it, isn’t that a sign that gun registration should be scrapped?
As if that weren’t enough, the DC police department is now forcing local gun-owners to re-submit their fingerprints (and pay an additional $35 fingerprinting fee) as part of the re-registration process —despite the fact that each of them has already been fingerprinted.
And why is this?
The city is saying that it somehow “lost” the original fingerprints. That’s right —having already fingerprinted as many D.C. gun owners as possible, the city’s police are forcing the same people to undergo the process a second time, at their own expense, simply because it misplaced the original fingerprints.
Can everyone agree that D.C.’s gun registration program has been an utter failure?
Even if gun registration were Constitutional (which it isn’t), the incompetence of the D.C. police is proof that the government lacks the basic ability to administer an effective gun registration database.
The D.C. program was already failing miserably, even before it was revealed that the D.C. government had lost everyone’s fingerprints. Despite the threat of jail time and thousands of dollars in fines, barely a thousand guns have been re-registered since the re-registration policy was instituted in December 2013.
If the police are unable to administer it, and the people aren’t willing to participate in it, isn’t that a sign that gun registration should be scrapped?
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Who Is Standing Up For Washington State Gun Owners?
The biggest battle over gun rights this election season isn’t in Washington, D.C. but in Washington State. Second Amendment supporters in Washington are facing off with the gun control lobby over dueling ballot initiatives — a pro-gun bill to prevent gun confiscation (I - 591) and an anti-gun bill to expand background checks (I - 594).
So far, it hasn’t been much of a fight. The anti-gun Washington Alliance For Gun Responsibility, supported by Seattle millionaires like Bill Gates and Paul Allen, has already raised more than $7 million in support of I – 594. The pro-gun side has raised only $1.3 million. The NRA — which just dropped $1.4 million in the Arkansas Senate race — has put only $191,000 into the fight.
Not surprisingly, polls show the anti-gunners pulling ahead, with seventy percent of voters favoring the background checks bill. According to gun rights activist Barron Barnett, many gun rights supporters in Washington aren’t even aware of what is going on. He recently wrote:
Barnett added that he feels abandoned by the NRA, writing that “the NRA is more than happy to take my money but then is no where to be found when things actually go sideways.”
With the NRA out of the picture, the fight is being led by Alan Gottlieb of the Washington State-based Second Amendment Foundation, who challenged Bill Gates to a debate over gun rights last month. But some have questioned Gottlieb’s commitment as well. Last month, the gun writer Claire Wolfe accused Gottlieb of being more interested in money and attention than gun rights, saying that he “need[s] and want[s] gun control because that’s what keeps the money and publicity flowing.”
Gottlieb was also widely criticized for supporting the Manchin – Toomey background check bill of 2013 (although he claims to have done so because the bill actually contained advances for gun rights.)
Time is running out to oppose I – 594 in Washington. One can only hope that gun groups will get their act together before it is too late.
So far, it hasn’t been much of a fight. The anti-gun Washington Alliance For Gun Responsibility, supported by Seattle millionaires like Bill Gates and Paul Allen, has already raised more than $7 million in support of I – 594. The pro-gun side has raised only $1.3 million. The NRA — which just dropped $1.4 million in the Arkansas Senate race — has put only $191,000 into the fight.
Not surprisingly, polls show the anti-gunners pulling ahead, with seventy percent of voters favoring the background checks bill. According to gun rights activist Barron Barnett, many gun rights supporters in Washington aren’t even aware of what is going on. He recently wrote:
“I am terrified. Out of the people visiting their local gun show you would expect at least 90% [to have] heard of what’s going on. It’s more like 50%. Most have no real knowledge of either of the initiatives or their real legal impact.”
Barnett added that he feels abandoned by the NRA, writing that “the NRA is more than happy to take my money but then is no where to be found when things actually go sideways.”
With the NRA out of the picture, the fight is being led by Alan Gottlieb of the Washington State-based Second Amendment Foundation, who challenged Bill Gates to a debate over gun rights last month. But some have questioned Gottlieb’s commitment as well. Last month, the gun writer Claire Wolfe accused Gottlieb of being more interested in money and attention than gun rights, saying that he “need[s] and want[s] gun control because that’s what keeps the money and publicity flowing.”
Gottlieb was also widely criticized for supporting the Manchin – Toomey background check bill of 2013 (although he claims to have done so because the bill actually contained advances for gun rights.)
Time is running out to oppose I – 594 in Washington. One can only hope that gun groups will get their act together before it is too late.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Members Of Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership Oppose Merger With Second Amendment Foundation
Members of Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership are opposing the group’s merger with the Second Amendment Foundation, citing founder Aaron Zelman’s personal distrust of SAF leader Alan Gottlieb.
JFPO member and contractor Claire Wolfe revealed news of the merger on August 22nd. In a column for Backwoods Home magazine, she accused Gottlieb of being more motivated by profit than by principles, writing:
“[Aaron Zelman] despised Alan Gottlieb and saw him as an opportunist who used scary mailings to turn SAF/CCRKBA into a fundraising factory. He saw Gottlieb as a person who needed and wanted ‘gun control’ because that’s what kept the money and the publicity flowing.”Wolfe identified Gottlieb’s support of the Manchin - Toomey gun control bill in 2013 as evidence of his willingness to compromise, pointing out that Gottlieb even boasted of helping to write the bill.
An anonymous JFPO member also accused Gottlieb of trying to gut JFPO simply to get his hands on the group’s mailing list:
“SAF is salivating at this ‘merger.’ What’s not to like? They pay a few bills, but they get a great email and snail-mail list. They probably know that there is very little overlap between SAF members and JPFO members.
But since SAF, Alan Gottlieb, and the lawyers he hires are unprincipled hypocrites, willing to compromise and toady at every turn, they don’t understand WHY there is so little overlap in membership.
The truth is, Aaron Zelman was a fanatic. In a good sense. He had a burning issue and a principled stance. He would never compromise.”Despite these complaints, the merger between SAF and JFPO was announced on September 4th. Supporters of the deal said that JFPO had no other option. In a press release, the organization stated:
“[T]he Stalking Horse of poor cash flow was always there. We came to realize that JPFO needed one or more major supporters to break through to the next level. Many inquiries yielded nil, it became clear that the most logical and efficient solution was to ally with another 2A organization, while preserving our identity. To solve these problems, the JPFO Board of Directors sought out and elected to merge with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).”An online petition to oppose the deal currently has almost 1500 signatures.
Monday, August 25, 2014
New York “Gun Offender” Registry Exposes Hypocrisy Of Gun Control
New York City lawmakers are calling for a public database of gun offenders modeled on the national sex offender registry. The proposal would create a website listing the name, address and conviction of “gun criminals” in New York City.
Supporters of this effort argue that it will increase public safety by educating the general public as to the whereabouts of dangerous criminals.
“It will make our communities more aware of who is in our neighborhood and what actions they have taken,” said New York City Councilman Costa Constantinides, who sponsored a bill in support of this effort. “Part of public safety is knowing who is on the field.”
In reality, this legislation — just like every other law targeting “gun crime” — has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with politics.
If Constantinides were truly interested in public safety, the proposed database would include all violent criminals — not just the ones who use guns. By choosing to target only “gun criminals”, he is implying that someone who has committed a minor gun offense is more dangerous than someone who has stabbed someone to death or beaten his wife.
The obvious hypocrisy of this law seems to be completely lost on its supporters, who are more interested in shaming gun owners than they are in addressing crime.
“If you committed an act of gun violence, if you shot somebody, and you don’t want to be put in the public spotlight, if this is going to embarrass you too much then you know what – just stay away from guns. Don’t do the crime,” said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr.
The real purpose of this law is to get votes — not to promote public safety.
Supporters of this effort argue that it will increase public safety by educating the general public as to the whereabouts of dangerous criminals.
“It will make our communities more aware of who is in our neighborhood and what actions they have taken,” said New York City Councilman Costa Constantinides, who sponsored a bill in support of this effort. “Part of public safety is knowing who is on the field.”
In reality, this legislation — just like every other law targeting “gun crime” — has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with politics.
If Constantinides were truly interested in public safety, the proposed database would include all violent criminals — not just the ones who use guns. By choosing to target only “gun criminals”, he is implying that someone who has committed a minor gun offense is more dangerous than someone who has stabbed someone to death or beaten his wife.
The obvious hypocrisy of this law seems to be completely lost on its supporters, who are more interested in shaming gun owners than they are in addressing crime.
“If you committed an act of gun violence, if you shot somebody, and you don’t want to be put in the public spotlight, if this is going to embarrass you too much then you know what – just stay away from guns. Don’t do the crime,” said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr.
The real purpose of this law is to get votes — not to promote public safety.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Conservatives Should Rally In Opposition To Police Firepower
Regardless of your opinion on recent events in Ferguson, MO, anyone who cares about his or her constitutional rights should be very concerned with the level of firepower that is being granted to local law enforcement agencies these days. Tanks and drones do not belong in the hands of local law enforcement.
Despite what the idiots in the liberal media might say, conservatives and libertarians have been trying to draw attention to this issue for years. In 2012, Sen. Tom Coburn released a comprehensive report illustrating how local law enforcement agencies have come more and more to resemble military units. Glenn Beck has also brought attention to the issue, as has the National Review’s Charles Cooke. Cooke wrote in June:
“Historians looking back at this period in America’s development will consider it to be profoundly odd that at the exact moment when violent crime hit a 50-year low, the nation’s police departments began to gear up as if the country were expecting invasion — and, on occasion, to behave as if one were underway.”
Following the events in Ferguson, Senator Rand Paul also spoke out on this topic, writing:
But the unfortunate truth is that voices like Paul’s are the exception in today’s Republican Party. The RINO establishment has remained silent on the growth of police firepower and even encouraged it.
When an amendment was introduced to the Defense Appropriations Bill in June to prohibit the transfer of military weapons to local law enforcement, only nineteen Republicans voted for it. In 2012, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell of West Virginia recommended that police use drones to hunt American citizens on domestic soil (something that has since become commonplace.)
Even the NRA (or at least one of its paid commentators) has come out in support of police militarization. Earlier this year, NRA commentator Dom Raso released two videos on the issue despite protests from the pro-2A community.
The Republican establishment seems to be more interested in pleasing defense companies who view police departments as customers than they are in protecting the civil rights of American citizens. They need to get their priorities straight and take a stand for basic conservative principles.
Despite what the idiots in the liberal media might say, conservatives and libertarians have been trying to draw attention to this issue for years. In 2012, Sen. Tom Coburn released a comprehensive report illustrating how local law enforcement agencies have come more and more to resemble military units. Glenn Beck has also brought attention to the issue, as has the National Review’s Charles Cooke. Cooke wrote in June:
“Historians looking back at this period in America’s development will consider it to be profoundly odd that at the exact moment when violent crime hit a 50-year low, the nation’s police departments began to gear up as if the country were expecting invasion — and, on occasion, to behave as if one were underway.”
Following the events in Ferguson, Senator Rand Paul also spoke out on this topic, writing:
“Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.”
But the unfortunate truth is that voices like Paul’s are the exception in today’s Republican Party. The RINO establishment has remained silent on the growth of police firepower and even encouraged it.
When an amendment was introduced to the Defense Appropriations Bill in June to prohibit the transfer of military weapons to local law enforcement, only nineteen Republicans voted for it. In 2012, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell of West Virginia recommended that police use drones to hunt American citizens on domestic soil (something that has since become commonplace.)
Even the NRA (or at least one of its paid commentators) has come out in support of police militarization. Earlier this year, NRA commentator Dom Raso released two videos on the issue despite protests from the pro-2A community.
The Republican establishment seems to be more interested in pleasing defense companies who view police departments as customers than they are in protecting the civil rights of American citizens. They need to get their priorities straight and take a stand for basic conservative principles.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
House Bill Would Keep Guns Away From Federal Regulators
Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) has introduced a bill to de-militarize federal regulatory agencies such as the Department of Education and the IRS.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, these agencies and dozens of others employ a steadily increasing number of armed law enforcement officers and have acquired frightening amounts of arms and ammunition. Stewart’s bill, entitled the Regulatory Agency Demilitarization Act, seeks to strip these agencies of their law enforcement authority and take away their weapons.
“I understand that federal agents must be capable of protecting themselves,” Stewart said. “But what we have observed goes far beyond providing necessary protection…Not only is it overkill, but having these highly armed units within dozens of agencies is duplicative, costly, heavy handed, dangerous and destroys any sense of trust between citizens and the federal government.”
In 2002, the Homeland Security Act gave dozens of non-traditional agencies the power to arrest people and use military grade firearms. Since then, dozens of agencies from the Department of Labor to the Peace Corps have hired armed officers and employed SWAT – type units.
“Like a lot of times, we write bad legislation in the heat of a crisis,” Stewart said. “We did it with Dodd Frank in reaction to the banking crisis. So that’s exactly what happened here, they gave this authority to federal agencies that never had it before. We have to pull it back now because it creates so much distrust with the America people.”
In recent years, there have been a number of disturbing reports of federal agencies abusing their law enforcement powers.
In 2012, the Social Security Administration requested 174,000 hollow point bullets. More recently, the USDA recently requested the use of .40 caliber submachine guns. And earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security contracted to purchase 704 million rounds over the next 4 years, or 2,500 rounds of ammo per officer, per year.
These requests go far beyond what is necessary and raise legitimate questions about what the ammo is actually intended for. Outside of a war zone, why would DHS need 2,500 rounds of ammunition per officer each year?
Congress should pass the Regulatory Agency Demilitarization Act and put all the questions to rest.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, these agencies and dozens of others employ a steadily increasing number of armed law enforcement officers and have acquired frightening amounts of arms and ammunition. Stewart’s bill, entitled the Regulatory Agency Demilitarization Act, seeks to strip these agencies of their law enforcement authority and take away their weapons.
“I understand that federal agents must be capable of protecting themselves,” Stewart said. “But what we have observed goes far beyond providing necessary protection…Not only is it overkill, but having these highly armed units within dozens of agencies is duplicative, costly, heavy handed, dangerous and destroys any sense of trust between citizens and the federal government.”
In 2002, the Homeland Security Act gave dozens of non-traditional agencies the power to arrest people and use military grade firearms. Since then, dozens of agencies from the Department of Labor to the Peace Corps have hired armed officers and employed SWAT – type units.
“Like a lot of times, we write bad legislation in the heat of a crisis,” Stewart said. “We did it with Dodd Frank in reaction to the banking crisis. So that’s exactly what happened here, they gave this authority to federal agencies that never had it before. We have to pull it back now because it creates so much distrust with the America people.”
In recent years, there have been a number of disturbing reports of federal agencies abusing their law enforcement powers.
In 2012, the Social Security Administration requested 174,000 hollow point bullets. More recently, the USDA recently requested the use of .40 caliber submachine guns. And earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security contracted to purchase 704 million rounds over the next 4 years, or 2,500 rounds of ammo per officer, per year.
These requests go far beyond what is necessary and raise legitimate questions about what the ammo is actually intended for. Outside of a war zone, why would DHS need 2,500 rounds of ammunition per officer each year?
Congress should pass the Regulatory Agency Demilitarization Act and put all the questions to rest.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Tennessee Senate Primary: Keeping RINOs In Check
With one day left before the Republican Senate primary in Tennessee, supporters of constitutional conservative Joe Carr are refusing to back down. The latest polling shows that State Rep. Joe Carr is trailing Sen. Lamar Alexander but remains within striking distance.
Released on Friday by Red Racing Horses, the latest poll found Alexander ahead of Carr by twelve points, 41 to 29. Twenty percent of voters said they were undecided. If those late-deciding voters rally behind Carr, the unthinkable could happen — Alexander could actually lose.
Carr has received a boost from a record – breaking early voter turnout — proof, he says, that his campaign is building momentum.
Even if Carr isn’t able to close the gap in time, this primary shows yet again that conservatives aren’t happy with the good old boys that the party sends to Washington. At the very least, the pressure will remind Alexander and the rest of the establishment that it has to keep in line.
Released on Friday by Red Racing Horses, the latest poll found Alexander ahead of Carr by twelve points, 41 to 29. Twenty percent of voters said they were undecided. If those late-deciding voters rally behind Carr, the unthinkable could happen — Alexander could actually lose.
Carr has received a boost from a record – breaking early voter turnout — proof, he says, that his campaign is building momentum.
Even if Carr isn’t able to close the gap in time, this primary shows yet again that conservatives aren’t happy with the good old boys that the party sends to Washington. At the very least, the pressure will remind Alexander and the rest of the establishment that it has to keep in line.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Does Lamar Alexander Actually Have The NRA’s Support?
Earlier this week, I wrote that the NRA endorsed Lamar Alexander in the upcoming Senate primary in Tennessee. This information came from an article published in The Hill last Sunday, which stated:
“Alexander dismisses criticisms that he’s moved too far to the center, citing his NRA endorsement and ‘A’ rating with the National Right to Life.”
It has since been brought to my attention that the NRA has not formally endorsed either candidate in this race. Either Alexander has been lying about being endorsed by the NRA, or the reporter misconstrued his comments.
It turns out that Alexander has also made misleading statements about his NRA rating. On his website, he claims that the NRA gave him an A rating in its most recent assessment of him earlier this month, while the NRA’s website states that he was downgraded to an A -. His opponent, Joe Carr, was given an A.
I take responsibility for mistakenly reporting the NRA’s endorsement, and in the future I will do a better job of checking my facts. But I also believe that Sen. Alexander needs to be less misleading about his support from the NRA.
“Alexander dismisses criticisms that he’s moved too far to the center, citing his NRA endorsement and ‘A’ rating with the National Right to Life.”
It has since been brought to my attention that the NRA has not formally endorsed either candidate in this race. Either Alexander has been lying about being endorsed by the NRA, or the reporter misconstrued his comments.
It turns out that Alexander has also made misleading statements about his NRA rating. On his website, he claims that the NRA gave him an A rating in its most recent assessment of him earlier this month, while the NRA’s website states that he was downgraded to an A -. His opponent, Joe Carr, was given an A.
I take responsibility for mistakenly reporting the NRA’s endorsement, and in the future I will do a better job of checking my facts. But I also believe that Sen. Alexander needs to be less misleading about his support from the NRA.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
NRA Endorses Sen. Lamar Alexander Despite Anti-Gun Votes
The NRA is supporting moderate Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander in his primary against Tea Party challenger Joe Carr, despite Alexander’s poor track record on gun issues in Congress. Alexander is merely the latest in a string of questionable endorsements that the group has made in this year’s Republican primaries.
Alexander sided with Democrats when gun rights were on the line in 2013. When Rand Paul tried to lead a Republican filibuster of the Obama’s background check bill, Sen. Alexander joined Democrats and provided a crucial vote to allow debate. He also voted to confirm Obama’s gun-grabbing Attorney General, Eric Holder.
Several other gun groups are opposing Alexander, including Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights.
In their endorsement of Joe Carr, GOA said: “Washington establishment insiders — who care more about their reelections than your constitutional rights — are being defeated by an electorate fed up with the status quo. It’s time for the same kind of change in Tennessee.”
Unlike Alexander, Carr has an unblemished record on gun rights. In its endorsement, GOA said:
“Time after time in the state legislature, Rep. Carr stood up for gun owners’ rights. Joe voted to protect the privacy of concealed carry permit holders, and he voted to expand concealed carry to all restaurants so you are better able to protect yourself and your family. Joe voted to eliminate the unconstitutional requirement that gun buyers submit a thumbprint to Tennessee firearms dealers."
GOA added that Alexander has a “C” rating from the group and he refuses to fill out the group’s survey.
This is far from the first time that the NRA has chosen to support a moderate Republican with a weak record on guns over a more worthy conservative challenger. The group endorsed several moderate candidates in 2014 including Mitch McConnell, Mike Simpson and Thad Cochran.
Like Alexander, Mitch McConnell won the NRA’s support despite having a history of weakness on gun issues. In 1991, McConnell voted for Joe Biden’s crime bill that imposed a waiting period on handgun sales. In 2004, he supported Barbara Boxer’s bill to prohibit the sale of guns without a safety storage device.
McConnell also voted with the Democrats to allow debate on Obama’s background check bill. Just like Alexander.
The NRA needs to go back to picking candidates according to their record on gun rights — period. If gun issues are not important to the NRA, then what is?
Alexander sided with Democrats when gun rights were on the line in 2013. When Rand Paul tried to lead a Republican filibuster of the Obama’s background check bill, Sen. Alexander joined Democrats and provided a crucial vote to allow debate. He also voted to confirm Obama’s gun-grabbing Attorney General, Eric Holder.
Several other gun groups are opposing Alexander, including Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights.
In their endorsement of Joe Carr, GOA said: “Washington establishment insiders — who care more about their reelections than your constitutional rights — are being defeated by an electorate fed up with the status quo. It’s time for the same kind of change in Tennessee.”
Unlike Alexander, Carr has an unblemished record on gun rights. In its endorsement, GOA said:
“Time after time in the state legislature, Rep. Carr stood up for gun owners’ rights. Joe voted to protect the privacy of concealed carry permit holders, and he voted to expand concealed carry to all restaurants so you are better able to protect yourself and your family. Joe voted to eliminate the unconstitutional requirement that gun buyers submit a thumbprint to Tennessee firearms dealers."
GOA added that Alexander has a “C” rating from the group and he refuses to fill out the group’s survey.
This is far from the first time that the NRA has chosen to support a moderate Republican with a weak record on guns over a more worthy conservative challenger. The group endorsed several moderate candidates in 2014 including Mitch McConnell, Mike Simpson and Thad Cochran.
Like Alexander, Mitch McConnell won the NRA’s support despite having a history of weakness on gun issues. In 1991, McConnell voted for Joe Biden’s crime bill that imposed a waiting period on handgun sales. In 2004, he supported Barbara Boxer’s bill to prohibit the sale of guns without a safety storage device.
McConnell also voted with the Democrats to allow debate on Obama’s background check bill. Just like Alexander.
The NRA needs to go back to picking candidates according to their record on gun rights — period. If gun issues are not important to the NRA, then what is?
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
“Guns Are Welcome” Sign Brings In Business
A restaurant owner in Tennessee says that posting a “Guns Are Welcome” sign on the front door of her establishment has brought in new customers.
Sharma Floyd, owner of Shiloh Brew and Chew in Maryville, TN, posted the sign after reading about a store in North Carolina that was robbed after it banned guns.
“They had put up a sign that said ‘No Weapons Allowed’ and they were robbed at gunpoint two days later. The convenience store manager was shot,” Floyd told the television station WBIR. “That got me thinking”.
Floyd decided to put up a sign of her own, welcoming people carrying guns to her establishment.
Floyd was simply trying to keep her restaurant safe, but she soon learned that the sign was also good advertising. She has gotten at least twenty new customers since posting it.
“I have had so many customers take pictures of the sign, ask to meet me in person, and thank me,” Floyd said. “There have been as many as eight people in here at one time who I know for a fact had guns. And no one would have known it except I know them personally.”
Floyd isn't the only business owner who is finding that welcoming guns is good for business. In the town of Rifle, Colorado, a restaurant called Shooters advertises itself as a “gun-friendly” dining establishment. Guns line the restaurant’s walls, and one waitress even carries a Ruger Blackhawk .357 revolver with a bandolier of live ammunition.
These businesses are reacting to big chains like Target and Starbucks that have banned guns in recent months.
"As the owner, I wanted to stand my ground," Floyd told WBIR. "I have that constitutional right. If you like it, that's great, if you don't, I'm sorry for you. I can't change who I am."
Sharma Floyd, owner of Shiloh Brew and Chew in Maryville, TN, posted the sign after reading about a store in North Carolina that was robbed after it banned guns.
“They had put up a sign that said ‘No Weapons Allowed’ and they were robbed at gunpoint two days later. The convenience store manager was shot,” Floyd told the television station WBIR. “That got me thinking”.
Floyd decided to put up a sign of her own, welcoming people carrying guns to her establishment.
Floyd was simply trying to keep her restaurant safe, but she soon learned that the sign was also good advertising. She has gotten at least twenty new customers since posting it.
“I have had so many customers take pictures of the sign, ask to meet me in person, and thank me,” Floyd said. “There have been as many as eight people in here at one time who I know for a fact had guns. And no one would have known it except I know them personally.”
Floyd isn't the only business owner who is finding that welcoming guns is good for business. In the town of Rifle, Colorado, a restaurant called Shooters advertises itself as a “gun-friendly” dining establishment. Guns line the restaurant’s walls, and one waitress even carries a Ruger Blackhawk .357 revolver with a bandolier of live ammunition.
These businesses are reacting to big chains like Target and Starbucks that have banned guns in recent months.
"As the owner, I wanted to stand my ground," Floyd told WBIR. "I have that constitutional right. If you like it, that's great, if you don't, I'm sorry for you. I can't change who I am."
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Comic Book Icon Archie Dies For Gun Control
The publishers of Life With Archie have announced that Archie Andrews will be killed in the next edition of the comic while protecting a gay politician who is trying to push gun control.
The politician is Archie’s best friend, a former soldier named Kevin Keller who entered politics in order to pass gun control after his husband was shot in an attempted robbery. Archie dies protecting Kevin from a would-be political assassin. The assassin’s identity will be revealed when the comic is released tomorrow.
If Archie’s death sounds like a ridiculous liberal publicity stunt, that’s because it is. Life With Archie underwent a “modern” makeover when it was re-launched in 2010. The new version of the comic targeted liberal readers by dealing with so-called “socially relevant” issues like gay marriage.
Archie’s re-invention generated lots of awards from left-wing organizations, but it must not have attracted many actual readers because Life With Archie will end permanently in August.
Apparently the publishers decided to try one last publicity stunt before pulling the plug. It’s sad to see a classic comic that was created in order to spread a Christian message end in such a silly and cynical way.
The politician is Archie’s best friend, a former soldier named Kevin Keller who entered politics in order to pass gun control after his husband was shot in an attempted robbery. Archie dies protecting Kevin from a would-be political assassin. The assassin’s identity will be revealed when the comic is released tomorrow.
If Archie’s death sounds like a ridiculous liberal publicity stunt, that’s because it is. Life With Archie underwent a “modern” makeover when it was re-launched in 2010. The new version of the comic targeted liberal readers by dealing with so-called “socially relevant” issues like gay marriage.
Archie’s re-invention generated lots of awards from left-wing organizations, but it must not have attracted many actual readers because Life With Archie will end permanently in August.
Apparently the publishers decided to try one last publicity stunt before pulling the plug. It’s sad to see a classic comic that was created in order to spread a Christian message end in such a silly and cynical way.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Obama’s Biggest Regret? Failure to Pass Background Checks
A few weeks ago, Obama said that his biggest disappointment as President was Congress’ failure to pass background check legislation.
Yes, you read that correctly. Of all the things he has bungled and ignored over the past six years, Obama thinks that his failure to limit the Second Amendment is the worst failure his presidency.
Really? That’s all he can come up with?
There are about seventeen million things that he should regret more than failing to take away gun rights from law abiding Americans. In case he forgot, here is a short list to remind him of some of the big ones:
• Abandoning Iraq and thrusting the country into civil war.
• Using the NSA to spy on millions of Americans.
• Spending the country’s future into oblivion.
• Bailing out all of those banks and companies that were “too big to fail”.
• The unmitigated disaster of Obamacare.
Instead, despite this endless list of screw-ups, Obama’s biggest regret is the fact that Congress didn’t pass a background checks law.
2016 cannot come soon enough.
Yes, you read that correctly. Of all the things he has bungled and ignored over the past six years, Obama thinks that his failure to limit the Second Amendment is the worst failure his presidency.
Really? That’s all he can come up with?
There are about seventeen million things that he should regret more than failing to take away gun rights from law abiding Americans. In case he forgot, here is a short list to remind him of some of the big ones:
• Abandoning Iraq and thrusting the country into civil war.
• Using the NSA to spy on millions of Americans.
• Spending the country’s future into oblivion.
• Bailing out all of those banks and companies that were “too big to fail”.
• The unmitigated disaster of Obamacare.
Instead, despite this endless list of screw-ups, Obama’s biggest regret is the fact that Congress didn’t pass a background checks law.
2016 cannot come soon enough.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
NRA Changes Stance On Guns For “Abusers”
Last week, the Governor of Vermont signed a law allowing police to confiscate guns from anyone under a judicial order for domestic abuse. This means that men and women accused of domestic crimes in Vermont could lose their Second Amendment rights before ever seeing a jury.
Similar laws have passed this year in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Louisiana. In each of these states, local gun groups protested the laws arguing that they not only violate the Second Amendment but also of contradict the basic concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”
The groups also argue that these laws will not do very much to actually protect victims of domestic violence. In Vermont, only one domestic violence murder was committed with a firearm during the most recent year on record. In Minnesota, a state of nearly five and a half million people, there were only ten such crimes last year.
Despite this, all four of these laws passed easily in each state. And in each case, their passage was approved and aided by the least likely of organizations: the NRA.
Over the past year, the NRA has been quietly helping legislators pass this kind of domestic violence legislation, either by promising not to oppose the bills or by actively working with the bills’ liberal sponsors. After the Minnesota bill passed, Minnesota Democratic State Rep. Dan Schoen said: “The NRA has been really good to work with on this particular issue. It pains me to say, but they have been.”
It is not entirely clear why the NRA is doing this. Until recently, it strongly opposed this kind of legislation and was successful in preventing the passage of these laws. Perhaps its change of heart has something to do with its recent outreach to women, or maybe it is another one of its lame efforts to appear “bipartisan”.
Who knows?
Either way, the NRA shouldn’t be handing victories to the gun grabbers just to protect its own image.
Similar laws have passed this year in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Louisiana. In each of these states, local gun groups protested the laws arguing that they not only violate the Second Amendment but also of contradict the basic concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”
The groups also argue that these laws will not do very much to actually protect victims of domestic violence. In Vermont, only one domestic violence murder was committed with a firearm during the most recent year on record. In Minnesota, a state of nearly five and a half million people, there were only ten such crimes last year.
Despite this, all four of these laws passed easily in each state. And in each case, their passage was approved and aided by the least likely of organizations: the NRA.
Over the past year, the NRA has been quietly helping legislators pass this kind of domestic violence legislation, either by promising not to oppose the bills or by actively working with the bills’ liberal sponsors. After the Minnesota bill passed, Minnesota Democratic State Rep. Dan Schoen said: “The NRA has been really good to work with on this particular issue. It pains me to say, but they have been.”
It is not entirely clear why the NRA is doing this. Until recently, it strongly opposed this kind of legislation and was successful in preventing the passage of these laws. Perhaps its change of heart has something to do with its recent outreach to women, or maybe it is another one of its lame efforts to appear “bipartisan”.
Who knows?
Either way, the NRA shouldn’t be handing victories to the gun grabbers just to protect its own image.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
The Supreme Court’s Overkill
On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a challenge from a former police officer named Bruce Abramski, who was convicted of "straw purchasing” after he bought a handgun on behalf of his uncle.
Despite the fact that Abramski’s uncle is an eligible gun owner and Abramski transferred the gun through a federally licensed firearms dealer, the Court upheld his conviction.
Abramski’s challenge said that it should be legal for one registered gun owner to purchase a gun on behalf of another eligible gun owner — especially if it is done through the proper channels. (Before taking control of the gun, Abramski’s uncle also passed all of the necessary background checks.)
Yet for the Supreme Court, that wasn’t enough. It ruled that Abramski should also have listed his Uncle’s name on the forms when he made the original purchase.
Tell me something — how does this kind of bureaucratic overkill prevent criminals from getting guns?
It doesn’t — and preventing crime is not the Court’s true intent.
In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:
“[Federal gun law] establishes an elaborate system to verify a would-be gun purchaser’s identity and check on his background. It also requires that the information so gathered go into a dealer’s permanent records… And no part of that scheme would work if the statute turned a blind eye to straw purchases.”
Protecting this 'scheme' is all that the liberals on the Court really care about.
Just like all the other liberals in Washington, their only goal is to control gun ownership any way they can.
Despite the fact that Abramski’s uncle is an eligible gun owner and Abramski transferred the gun through a federally licensed firearms dealer, the Court upheld his conviction.
Abramski’s challenge said that it should be legal for one registered gun owner to purchase a gun on behalf of another eligible gun owner — especially if it is done through the proper channels. (Before taking control of the gun, Abramski’s uncle also passed all of the necessary background checks.)
Yet for the Supreme Court, that wasn’t enough. It ruled that Abramski should also have listed his Uncle’s name on the forms when he made the original purchase.
Tell me something — how does this kind of bureaucratic overkill prevent criminals from getting guns?
It doesn’t — and preventing crime is not the Court’s true intent.
In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:
“[Federal gun law] establishes an elaborate system to verify a would-be gun purchaser’s identity and check on his background. It also requires that the information so gathered go into a dealer’s permanent records… And no part of that scheme would work if the statute turned a blind eye to straw purchases.”
Protecting this 'scheme' is all that the liberals on the Court really care about.
Just like all the other liberals in Washington, their only goal is to control gun ownership any way they can.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
The Justice Department’s Gun Grab
Having failed to convince Congress to support its radical gun control agenda, the Obama Administration is now using the Justice Department to attack gun rights through the financial system.
In the latest example of how Obama will stop at nothing to advance his anti-gun agenda, the Justice Department is using the flimsy excuse of “fraud protection” to force financial institutions to cease providing services to gun companies.
The Justice Department is conducting something called “Operation Choke Point”, supposedly in an effort to combat credit card fraud. The operation targets businesses that have a “high risk” of fraud — whatever that means — by forcing financial companies to end their relationships with those companies.
The program was designed to crack down on online payday lenders, but – big surprise! -- Holder and his cronies are also using the program to attack law abiding gun companies.
A new report from the House Oversight Committee found that several gun companies have had their banking relationships severed as a result of this program.
Fox News quotes one of the report’s authors, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri: “We have documented that they are going after gun and ammunitions manufacturers, gun sellers and non-deposit lenders…There is an orchestrated effort…to do away with entire industries instead of going after the bad actors.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation says that several of its members have had their banking relationships terminated as a result of this illegal program, “simply because they are engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms.”
One of the banks participating in the program is TD Bank, which cut off business with a hunting and fishing store because of the program. (Remind me not to attend any Celtics games any time soon!)
This is a disgusting use of executive power to bypass Congress, the Constitution, and the will of the American people. But unfortunately this kind of tactic is all too common from Obama’s Justice Department.
The tyranny of the Obama Administration truly knows no bounds.
In the latest example of how Obama will stop at nothing to advance his anti-gun agenda, the Justice Department is using the flimsy excuse of “fraud protection” to force financial institutions to cease providing services to gun companies.
The Justice Department is conducting something called “Operation Choke Point”, supposedly in an effort to combat credit card fraud. The operation targets businesses that have a “high risk” of fraud — whatever that means — by forcing financial companies to end their relationships with those companies.
The program was designed to crack down on online payday lenders, but – big surprise! -- Holder and his cronies are also using the program to attack law abiding gun companies.
A new report from the House Oversight Committee found that several gun companies have had their banking relationships severed as a result of this program.
Fox News quotes one of the report’s authors, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri: “We have documented that they are going after gun and ammunitions manufacturers, gun sellers and non-deposit lenders…There is an orchestrated effort…to do away with entire industries instead of going after the bad actors.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation says that several of its members have had their banking relationships terminated as a result of this illegal program, “simply because they are engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms.”
One of the banks participating in the program is TD Bank, which cut off business with a hunting and fishing store because of the program. (Remind me not to attend any Celtics games any time soon!)
This is a disgusting use of executive power to bypass Congress, the Constitution, and the will of the American people. But unfortunately this kind of tactic is all too common from Obama’s Justice Department.
The tyranny of the Obama Administration truly knows no bounds.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Allow Students To Defend Themselves
This past weekend, a killer in California named Elliott Rodgers stabbed and shot six college students in a murderous rampage. By the time law enforcement arrived, he had already taken his own life.
When are Americans going to realize that the only way to stop these criminals is to give people the right to protect themselves on college campuses?
Campus carry would allow students to fight back against school shooters. When a killer strikes, there is no time to wait for the police. Let me ask you this: if someone like Elliott Rodgers attacked you, wouldn’t you prefer to have a gun with you?
Gun grabbers are afraid that allowing guns on campuses would put students in danger, but nothing could be further from the truth. States that allow campus carry have not reported any problems. Utah specifically prohibits gun bans on college campuses, and the law has existed for years without a single serious incident.
Finally, lest we forget — the right to bear arms is an inalienable part of the US Constitution! Students deserve gun rights just like every other American.
I would prefer to send my kids to a university that respects the Constitution and allows law-abiding gun owners to carry on campus. In a worst-case scenario, they would be able to stand up for themselves.
When are Americans going to realize that the only way to stop these criminals is to give people the right to protect themselves on college campuses?
Campus carry would allow students to fight back against school shooters. When a killer strikes, there is no time to wait for the police. Let me ask you this: if someone like Elliott Rodgers attacked you, wouldn’t you prefer to have a gun with you?
Gun grabbers are afraid that allowing guns on campuses would put students in danger, but nothing could be further from the truth. States that allow campus carry have not reported any problems. Utah specifically prohibits gun bans on college campuses, and the law has existed for years without a single serious incident.
Finally, lest we forget — the right to bear arms is an inalienable part of the US Constitution! Students deserve gun rights just like every other American.
I would prefer to send my kids to a university that respects the Constitution and allows law-abiding gun owners to carry on campus. In a worst-case scenario, they would be able to stand up for themselves.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Why McConnell Must Lose
Kentucky conservatives cannot give up on defeating Mitch McConnell in tomorrow’s primary, no matter how much of an underdog Matt Bevin has become. This primary is about far more than kicking a single moderate out of office. It could determine who becomes the next Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate.
Republicans' chances of taking over the Senate this fall are looking stronger and stronger every day. If McConnell loses re-election, the man who replaces Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader could be a true conservative like Mike Lee from Utah (or even Ted Cruz). Lee has the grassroots support and he also has the votes, and he has a real shot of getting the job should McConnell lose.
Even John Cornyn, of Texas, who has been talked up as a replacement for McConnell, would be a real improvement. Despite being closer to the establishment than Senator Lee, Cornyn is guided by conservative principles far more than McConnell.
For the first time in a long time, the most powerful man in the Republican Party could actually be a real conservative.
But if McConnell wins re-election, he will undoubtedly become majority leader and nothing will change in Washington. The most powerful Republican in the country will be a poster child for backroom deal making. The face of the Republican Party will be a moderate known for his earmarks and his support for Wall Street bailouts. Conservatives will be left out in the cold. Again.
Until a true conservative takes over leadership of the Republican Party, all of those Tea Party rallies and marches will have had a limited effect. Tomorrow in Kentucky, conservatives have an opportunity to show once and for all that our voices are more powerful than McConnell’s millions. We need to make it count.
Republicans' chances of taking over the Senate this fall are looking stronger and stronger every day. If McConnell loses re-election, the man who replaces Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader could be a true conservative like Mike Lee from Utah (or even Ted Cruz). Lee has the grassroots support and he also has the votes, and he has a real shot of getting the job should McConnell lose.
Even John Cornyn, of Texas, who has been talked up as a replacement for McConnell, would be a real improvement. Despite being closer to the establishment than Senator Lee, Cornyn is guided by conservative principles far more than McConnell.
For the first time in a long time, the most powerful man in the Republican Party could actually be a real conservative.
But if McConnell wins re-election, he will undoubtedly become majority leader and nothing will change in Washington. The most powerful Republican in the country will be a poster child for backroom deal making. The face of the Republican Party will be a moderate known for his earmarks and his support for Wall Street bailouts. Conservatives will be left out in the cold. Again.
Until a true conservative takes over leadership of the Republican Party, all of those Tea Party rallies and marches will have had a limited effect. Tomorrow in Kentucky, conservatives have an opportunity to show once and for all that our voices are more powerful than McConnell’s millions. We need to make it count.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Tea Partiers Will Never Support McConnell
With victory for Mitch McConnell looking increasingly likely, people are starting to wonder whether Matt Bevin’s supporters will vote for McConnell in the general election.
Let me make this perfectly clear: I will not be voting for Mitch McConnell, and neither will any other self-respecting conservative.
I admit that I am not surprised that Bevin has fallen behind. He made too many mistakes —especially his attempt to cover up the whole cockfighting thing — and he simply couldn’t stand up to McConnell’s well-financed attacks.
But I will never support a candidate who refuses to speak to Ted Cruz, vows to “crush” the Tea Party, and is backed by the Washington lobbyists in the NRA (despite barely being able to hold a gun correctly). It doesn’t matter whether or not Republicans take the Senate — if he is re-elected, Mitch McConnell is going to be the same big-spending dealmaker that he has been for decades.
America is in the worst shape that it has been in since the Great Depression. Federal debt is choking our economy, and our representatives are sitting there doing nothing. Do you honestly think that electing the same old people to the same old jobs is going to change anything?
Let me make this perfectly clear: I will not be voting for Mitch McConnell, and neither will any other self-respecting conservative.
I admit that I am not surprised that Bevin has fallen behind. He made too many mistakes —especially his attempt to cover up the whole cockfighting thing — and he simply couldn’t stand up to McConnell’s well-financed attacks.
But I will never support a candidate who refuses to speak to Ted Cruz, vows to “crush” the Tea Party, and is backed by the Washington lobbyists in the NRA (despite barely being able to hold a gun correctly). It doesn’t matter whether or not Republicans take the Senate — if he is re-elected, Mitch McConnell is going to be the same big-spending dealmaker that he has been for decades.
America is in the worst shape that it has been in since the Great Depression. Federal debt is choking our economy, and our representatives are sitting there doing nothing. Do you honestly think that electing the same old people to the same old jobs is going to change anything?
Friday, April 25, 2014
Boycott Franklin Graham and the NRA’s Gun Control Convention
A few years ago, the NRA made their annual meeting a “gun free zone”. This year, liberal gun grabbers are excited because the NRA hired a speaker who supports background checks. When did the NRA Annual Meeting become a gun control convention?
My nephew just sent me an article saying that the liberal gun control group The Brady Campaign is thrilled that the NRA hired anti-gunner Franklin Graham to pray at their convention. Graham sold out Americans by supporting background checks while Obama was trying to exploit the Newtown tragedy. Now, just a year later, he is headlining the NRA’s convention? I don’t care that he is trying to go back on his position now. This is a complete betrayal of gun owners by the NRA.
NRA members should boycott the convention. Background checks would give the government a paper trail on every single gun sale in America. The next stop after that is a federal gun registry, which would destroy the 2nd Amendment. Yet the NRA is happy to feature a prominent pro-background check figure at their yearly meeting? Nobody who supports gun rights should stand for it.
The truth is that the NRA has surrendered on background checks before. In 2007, they struck a deal with senior Democrats to strengthen background checks by bribing states to send gun buyer data to the federal government. In 1999, Wayne LaPierre testified that background checks were a good thing. And now they are cuddling up to Franklin Graham.
NRA members need to stop being dazzled by all the membership perks and shooting events and start holding their leadership accountable. The NRA does not exist to entertain gun owners. They are supposed to be protecting our rights. Yet they consistently betray us for people like Franklin Graham and Mitch McConnell, another gun phony who is speaking at the meeting this year, who the NRA has given more money to than any other member of Congress.
The NRA thinks that its members are sheep who will listen to anyone that the NRA leadership puts in front of them. Boycotting the convention would let them know who is the boss.
My nephew just sent me an article saying that the liberal gun control group The Brady Campaign is thrilled that the NRA hired anti-gunner Franklin Graham to pray at their convention. Graham sold out Americans by supporting background checks while Obama was trying to exploit the Newtown tragedy. Now, just a year later, he is headlining the NRA’s convention? I don’t care that he is trying to go back on his position now. This is a complete betrayal of gun owners by the NRA.
NRA members should boycott the convention. Background checks would give the government a paper trail on every single gun sale in America. The next stop after that is a federal gun registry, which would destroy the 2nd Amendment. Yet the NRA is happy to feature a prominent pro-background check figure at their yearly meeting? Nobody who supports gun rights should stand for it.
The truth is that the NRA has surrendered on background checks before. In 2007, they struck a deal with senior Democrats to strengthen background checks by bribing states to send gun buyer data to the federal government. In 1999, Wayne LaPierre testified that background checks were a good thing. And now they are cuddling up to Franklin Graham.
NRA members need to stop being dazzled by all the membership perks and shooting events and start holding their leadership accountable. The NRA does not exist to entertain gun owners. They are supposed to be protecting our rights. Yet they consistently betray us for people like Franklin Graham and Mitch McConnell, another gun phony who is speaking at the meeting this year, who the NRA has given more money to than any other member of Congress.
The NRA thinks that its members are sheep who will listen to anyone that the NRA leadership puts in front of them. Boycotting the convention would let them know who is the boss.
Monday, April 21, 2014
The Story of my First Turkey, in Honor of Turkey Season
Lots of people think that turkeys are stupid, and they may be right. They say that turkeys sometimes just stare at the sky for no reason. They even do this when it is raining and then drown from it. That’s not what I would consider a particularly brilliant animal.
But that doesn’t mean they are always easy to hunt. Turkeys are twitchy, unpredictable, and spook easily. You might get lucky and walk right into one, or you might spend hours tracking and calling only to have the gobbler scamper off at the last second. Turkeys can be frustrating — but that is also what makes bagging one so addictive and thrilling.
It took me quite a while to experience that thrill personally. My first turkey season as a teenager, I didn’t bag a single bird. I spent the winter reading up, asking older hunters for tips, practicing with the box calls. When the next season finally rolled around, I thought I was ready.
My buddy Mark agreed to call for me, and we set up at the base of a huge pine tree. We couldn’t have been sitting there for more than fifteen minutes when we heard a gobble not too far off. Mark made a call; it called back. A shiver went down my spine and my palms started sweating. This was it!
Except it wasn’t. You are supposed to wait for at least fifteen minutes between turkey calls. That day, those fifteen minutes felt like three hours. I sure am glad Mark was holding the call — I would have blown it about every thirty seconds!
After what felt like forever, Mark looked at me and pointed to a clump of bushes about ten yards away. The bushes started rustling and a juvenile male poked his head around.
I looked down at my shotgun and my hands were shaking. Steadying myself as much as possible, I raised the gun took aim. The seconds felt like minutes.
Maybe I was too nervous, because I shot low — too low. The bird was hurt, but not killed, and it ran right out of the bushes at me. And, I kid you not, I found myself in a wrestling match! Luckily I was able to wring its neck pretty quick, without getting spurred. But I still felt mighty bad about putting the bird through a painful death like that.
Suffice to say, bare hands are not the best way to take out my first gobbler. Ever since then, I’ve made sure to shoot straight the first time!
But that doesn’t mean they are always easy to hunt. Turkeys are twitchy, unpredictable, and spook easily. You might get lucky and walk right into one, or you might spend hours tracking and calling only to have the gobbler scamper off at the last second. Turkeys can be frustrating — but that is also what makes bagging one so addictive and thrilling.
It took me quite a while to experience that thrill personally. My first turkey season as a teenager, I didn’t bag a single bird. I spent the winter reading up, asking older hunters for tips, practicing with the box calls. When the next season finally rolled around, I thought I was ready.
My buddy Mark agreed to call for me, and we set up at the base of a huge pine tree. We couldn’t have been sitting there for more than fifteen minutes when we heard a gobble not too far off. Mark made a call; it called back. A shiver went down my spine and my palms started sweating. This was it!
Except it wasn’t. You are supposed to wait for at least fifteen minutes between turkey calls. That day, those fifteen minutes felt like three hours. I sure am glad Mark was holding the call — I would have blown it about every thirty seconds!
After what felt like forever, Mark looked at me and pointed to a clump of bushes about ten yards away. The bushes started rustling and a juvenile male poked his head around.
I looked down at my shotgun and my hands were shaking. Steadying myself as much as possible, I raised the gun took aim. The seconds felt like minutes.
Maybe I was too nervous, because I shot low — too low. The bird was hurt, but not killed, and it ran right out of the bushes at me. And, I kid you not, I found myself in a wrestling match! Luckily I was able to wring its neck pretty quick, without getting spurred. But I still felt mighty bad about putting the bird through a painful death like that.
Suffice to say, bare hands are not the best way to take out my first gobbler. Ever since then, I’ve made sure to shoot straight the first time!
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Bloomberg and the NRA
Seeing Michael Bloomberg go after the NRA is like watching Louisville play Duke. I hope they both lose.
Bloomberg and the leaders of the NRA are more alike than any of them would ever admit. We know that the NRA are masters of rigging elections, and Bloomberg throws his money around New York and calls it “democracy.” All of them make thousands of times more than the average American. All of them believe that their money and power makes their opinion more valuable than everyone else’s.
I don’t care to have my opinions dictated to me by a bunch of people sitting in fancy dining rooms in Washington or New York. As far as I am concerned, Bloomberg and the NRA deserve each other.
Bloomberg and the leaders of the NRA are more alike than any of them would ever admit. We know that the NRA are masters of rigging elections, and Bloomberg throws his money around New York and calls it “democracy.” All of them make thousands of times more than the average American. All of them believe that their money and power makes their opinion more valuable than everyone else’s.
I don’t care to have my opinions dictated to me by a bunch of people sitting in fancy dining rooms in Washington or New York. As far as I am concerned, Bloomberg and the NRA deserve each other.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Grimes and the Democrats Hypocrisy on Women
For the life of me, I will never understand Democrats. Are they just stupid? Or are they really as hypocritical and power hungry as they seem to be? I'm pretty sure it's a little bit of both.
Take Allison Grimes and her pandering to women voters. Just like all Democrats these days, Grimes takes women for granted. She assumes women will vote for her just because she is a woman and a democrat. And then she goes and accepts money from an ally who sexually harassed three employees, and appears at a huge rally with Bill Clinton, of all people, a man who, need I remind you, used his power to violate a 20 year old intern!
If I were a woman I would be insulted. Even though I am not, it still makes my head spin. Just another liberal hypocrite!
Take Allison Grimes and her pandering to women voters. Just like all Democrats these days, Grimes takes women for granted. She assumes women will vote for her just because she is a woman and a democrat. And then she goes and accepts money from an ally who sexually harassed three employees, and appears at a huge rally with Bill Clinton, of all people, a man who, need I remind you, used his power to violate a 20 year old intern!
If I were a woman I would be insulted. Even though I am not, it still makes my head spin. Just another liberal hypocrite!
Friday, April 11, 2014
So the NRA is pro-background check now?
I was reading Guns.com yesterday and I came across this article. What
the hell? A group called Moms Demand Action is praising the NRA for
having a pro-background check speaker at their convention. When liberals
start praising the NRA, that’s a problem. It
just goes to show how out of touch the NRA is with regular
conservatives and gun owners, which is what I have said for years.
UK Loses
Man, what a roller-coaster season. We were preseason number one before falling out of the rankings completely. Then we got hot at the right time and blazed through the tournament, only to lose a sloppy title game to a seven seed. If only we could have hit some free throws, the national championship would have been ours. I guess there is always next year.
Speaking of which, it looks like UK might lose at least 5 players to the NBA draft, including both Harrisons. But that is nothing unusual these days, and Calipari has some blue chips coming in. Once I get over this tournament hangover, it looks like there are a lot of reasons to be excited!
That might take me a while though… what a heartbreaking loss!
Speaking of which, it looks like UK might lose at least 5 players to the NBA draft, including both Harrisons. But that is nothing unusual these days, and Calipari has some blue chips coming in. Once I get over this tournament hangover, it looks like there are a lot of reasons to be excited!
That might take me a while though… what a heartbreaking loss!
Want real conservative reform in Washington? Don’t count on the NRA.
If there is any doubt which side the NRA’s bread is buttered on, just at look at who is speaking at the NRA annual meeting later this month—none other than compromiser-in-chief Mitch McConnell.
The NRA sucks up to RINOs and Democrats all the time, but McConnell more than anyone else. They’ve given him more money than any other member of Congress ($19,000 between 2006 and 2012). They roll out the red carpet for him at their convention. They let him give NRA awards at CPAC (although he looked like a complete idiot). And while they sit out many other Republican primaries, or wait until the last second to weigh in, they endorsed McConnell over Bevin six months before primary day.
With all this cuddly behavior from the NRA, you would think McConnell was firmly pro-gun. Except he isn’t. He voted for Joe Biden’s crime bill, which banned several types of assault weapons and installed a waiting period on handguns. When Rand Paul (who the NRA has never made a donation to, by the way) introduced a pro-gun bill in 2011, McConnell voted against it and the bill never passed. He also voted for a bill written by Barbara Boxer to require gun sellers to include gun storage devices with each of their sales.
And yet the NRA basically walks around laying rose petals at his feet. What the heck are they thinking about?
The answer is simple: money. McConnell is always ready to swing a deal (debt ceiling, anyone?). He knows how to grease the wheels of the Washington spending machine. Anyone interested in suckling at the power teat would be wise to cozy up to him.
And that is why the NRA loves him. Their members are blind to this fact, but the NRA depends on big government. Every time there are rumblings in Washington about gun control or background checks, their membership increases and the dues roll in. Every time liberals introduce gun grab legislation, Wayne LaPierre gets to go on TV.
Why would a gigantic gun rights group want the problem of gun control to go away? Gun control pays their salaries!
Conservatives need to wake up and start paying closer attention to the organizations that they support. They have been letting the charlatans in the NRA pull the wool over their eyes for too long. If you want smaller government and better gun laws, you can start by skipping the annual meeting and turning in your NRA card.
The NRA sucks up to RINOs and Democrats all the time, but McConnell more than anyone else. They’ve given him more money than any other member of Congress ($19,000 between 2006 and 2012). They roll out the red carpet for him at their convention. They let him give NRA awards at CPAC (although he looked like a complete idiot). And while they sit out many other Republican primaries, or wait until the last second to weigh in, they endorsed McConnell over Bevin six months before primary day.
With all this cuddly behavior from the NRA, you would think McConnell was firmly pro-gun. Except he isn’t. He voted for Joe Biden’s crime bill, which banned several types of assault weapons and installed a waiting period on handguns. When Rand Paul (who the NRA has never made a donation to, by the way) introduced a pro-gun bill in 2011, McConnell voted against it and the bill never passed. He also voted for a bill written by Barbara Boxer to require gun sellers to include gun storage devices with each of their sales.
And yet the NRA basically walks around laying rose petals at his feet. What the heck are they thinking about?
The answer is simple: money. McConnell is always ready to swing a deal (debt ceiling, anyone?). He knows how to grease the wheels of the Washington spending machine. Anyone interested in suckling at the power teat would be wise to cozy up to him.
And that is why the NRA loves him. Their members are blind to this fact, but the NRA depends on big government. Every time there are rumblings in Washington about gun control or background checks, their membership increases and the dues roll in. Every time liberals introduce gun grab legislation, Wayne LaPierre gets to go on TV.
Why would a gigantic gun rights group want the problem of gun control to go away? Gun control pays their salaries!
Conservatives need to wake up and start paying closer attention to the organizations that they support. They have been letting the charlatans in the NRA pull the wool over their eyes for too long. If you want smaller government and better gun laws, you can start by skipping the annual meeting and turning in your NRA card.
Monday, April 7, 2014
JUST ONE MORE….
Tonight is the big night!!
Hopefully UK won’t need Harrison to pull out another miracle in this one. I’m not sure if my heart can take another last minute win.
I think that I deserve partial credit for this team’s turnaround. Ever since I started this blog and wrote a post criticizing Coach Calipari, this team has been on fire! I don’t think they could have done it without me.
I’m just kidding, of course. I just hope we can keep it going one more game! Go Wildcats!
Hopefully UK won’t need Harrison to pull out another miracle in this one. I’m not sure if my heart can take another last minute win.
I think that I deserve partial credit for this team’s turnaround. Ever since I started this blog and wrote a post criticizing Coach Calipari, this team has been on fire! I don’t think they could have done it without me.
I’m just kidding, of course. I just hope we can keep it going one more game! Go Wildcats!
Monday, March 24, 2014
UK Basketball Moves On
Well, consider me speechless. What a game! Just when I was ready to write this season off as a huge disappointment, the Cats come back with a great second half to knock off the only team that has ever gone 35 – 0 in NCAA history. I don’t care if Wichita had a soft schedule. They were an excellent team and Big Blue Nation should be proud.
UK has spent most of the season playing like the freshmen they are, but it seems like we are maturing just at the right time. We put up a good fight against Florida last week, and we have looked great in the tournament so far. I guess that is how it works when you bring in a new bunch of players every year – sometimes it takes them a while to get it together!
We will need to keep on gelling, though, because the road only gets harder from here. Louisville has been sloppy in the tournament so far, but they are a better all around team than Wichita and our old friend Slick Rick Pitino knows how to win in the Sweet 16. How great would it be to stick it to him this week? I can’t wait.
UK has spent most of the season playing like the freshmen they are, but it seems like we are maturing just at the right time. We put up a good fight against Florida last week, and we have looked great in the tournament so far. I guess that is how it works when you bring in a new bunch of players every year – sometimes it takes them a while to get it together!
We will need to keep on gelling, though, because the road only gets harder from here. Louisville has been sloppy in the tournament so far, but they are a better all around team than Wichita and our old friend Slick Rick Pitino knows how to win in the Sweet 16. How great would it be to stick it to him this week? I can’t wait.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
UK Basketball
Sometimes making it to the top just means you have a longer way to fall. UK basketball fans are learning that the hard way this year, as the Wildcats have become the first team ever to fall completely out of the Top 25 after being ranked number one in the preseason. For me, there’s no question who to blame: Coach Calipari.
I know, I know. I sound like a spoiled brat complaining about a Coach who brought us a national championship only two years ago. But every time I watch the team this year, they make mistakes that a good coach would never allow. They don’t share the ball, they turn the ball over, and they are lazy on defense. They are lucky that the SEC is so weak this year, or else they would be in real danger of missing the tournament.
There’s no question that Calipari is an expert recruiter, perhaps the best in college basketball. (He’s so good that I wonder if he bends the rules a bit.) But his weaknesses as an in-game coach and motivator are more evident this year than ever. Even in an NCAA where the best players all bolt for the NCAA after one year, coaches need to be more than just salesmen and recruiters. They can’t forget to actually coach!
Now Calipari is claiming that he made some “tweak” to the offense that will change everything. I’ll believe it when I see it. Watching UK basketball this year has reminded me of that age old lesson: don’t believe the hype.
I know, I know. I sound like a spoiled brat complaining about a Coach who brought us a national championship only two years ago. But every time I watch the team this year, they make mistakes that a good coach would never allow. They don’t share the ball, they turn the ball over, and they are lazy on defense. They are lucky that the SEC is so weak this year, or else they would be in real danger of missing the tournament.
There’s no question that Calipari is an expert recruiter, perhaps the best in college basketball. (He’s so good that I wonder if he bends the rules a bit.) But his weaknesses as an in-game coach and motivator are more evident this year than ever. Even in an NCAA where the best players all bolt for the NCAA after one year, coaches need to be more than just salesmen and recruiters. They can’t forget to actually coach!
Now Calipari is claiming that he made some “tweak” to the offense that will change everything. I’ll believe it when I see it. Watching UK basketball this year has reminded me of that age old lesson: don’t believe the hype.
Friday, March 7, 2014
The NRA is the Mitch McConnell of gun groups
The right to bear arms is one of the most important rights that we have in this country. I’ve been following the gun issue for decades, and I’m old enough to remember when the NRA supported gun control in the 1960s (They actually still support gun control…but more on that later.) So you can rest assured that I know how to tell the difference between a politician who really knows his stuff on guns, and one who is faking it.
I wonder if you can guess which of those two categories applies to my Senator here in Kentucky, Mitch McConnell.
That’s right. Mitch McConnell is a gun phony.
If that wasn’t clear before, it sure is now that he wandered out on stage holding a rifle at CPAC the other day. You’ve probably seen the pictures -- he had this glassy look in his eyes, as if he had wandered off from a group of tourists. He was holding the gun uncomfortably, like he had never touched one before. I guarantee you he couldn’t have gotten that gun to fire properly if his life depended on it.
Yet this is the man the NRA is supporting in the Kentucky Republican primary. How could that be? Why would a group that supposedly defends gun rights align themselves with such a phony?
The answer is simple: power and greed.
The truth is that the NRA and Mitch McConnell have a lot in common. They both pretend to be part of the conservative movement, but they are only interested in stuffing their pockets. They both pretend to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, but behind our backs they are busy making deals with the Democrats to give themselves more power. Make no mistake -- McConnell and the NRA are both Washington fat cats.
And that is why the NRA is supporting him over Matt Bevin, despite the fact that Mitch McConnell looks about as natural holding a gun as Barack Obama does throwing a baseball in mom jeans.
A lot of my hunting buddies hate it when I talk bad about the NRA. They think that it is okay for NRA leaders to make compromises with Democrats and pay themselves million dollar salaries as long as they fight against gun control laws. So I will ask you the same things that I ask them:
Do you really think that a gigantic Washington lobbying group supports limited government?
Do you really think an organization that makes millions lobbying on gun issues wants the problem of gun control to go away permanently?
I don’t think so. If gun control were no longer a problem, everyone at the NRA would be out of a job!
Until conservatives refuse to be pandered to by people like McConnell and the NRA, the problems in our country aren’t going to get any better. Conservative gun owners need to embrace the truth – the NRA is part of the problem, just like Mitch McConnell.
I wonder if you can guess which of those two categories applies to my Senator here in Kentucky, Mitch McConnell.
That’s right. Mitch McConnell is a gun phony.
If that wasn’t clear before, it sure is now that he wandered out on stage holding a rifle at CPAC the other day. You’ve probably seen the pictures -- he had this glassy look in his eyes, as if he had wandered off from a group of tourists. He was holding the gun uncomfortably, like he had never touched one before. I guarantee you he couldn’t have gotten that gun to fire properly if his life depended on it.
Yet this is the man the NRA is supporting in the Kentucky Republican primary. How could that be? Why would a group that supposedly defends gun rights align themselves with such a phony?
The answer is simple: power and greed.
The truth is that the NRA and Mitch McConnell have a lot in common. They both pretend to be part of the conservative movement, but they are only interested in stuffing their pockets. They both pretend to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, but behind our backs they are busy making deals with the Democrats to give themselves more power. Make no mistake -- McConnell and the NRA are both Washington fat cats.
And that is why the NRA is supporting him over Matt Bevin, despite the fact that Mitch McConnell looks about as natural holding a gun as Barack Obama does throwing a baseball in mom jeans.
A lot of my hunting buddies hate it when I talk bad about the NRA. They think that it is okay for NRA leaders to make compromises with Democrats and pay themselves million dollar salaries as long as they fight against gun control laws. So I will ask you the same things that I ask them:
Do you really think that a gigantic Washington lobbying group supports limited government?
Do you really think an organization that makes millions lobbying on gun issues wants the problem of gun control to go away permanently?
I don’t think so. If gun control were no longer a problem, everyone at the NRA would be out of a job!
Until conservatives refuse to be pandered to by people like McConnell and the NRA, the problems in our country aren’t going to get any better. Conservative gun owners need to embrace the truth – the NRA is part of the problem, just like Mitch McConnell.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Yes We Can? No You Can’t.
Leadership is gone. Dependency is rewarded. Excuses are encouraged. Excellency is punished. Yes We Can has become No You Can’t.
Welcome to modern day America, a country filled with spoiled, weak people who expect someone to solve all of their problems for them. That’s what happens when you have a generation raised by hippies who never punished their children and told them that the world was their oyster. Young people today don’t know how to take care of themselves, and they expect the government to take care of their every need.
When my boys were small I taught them how to hunt, how to clean a fish, how to use a chainsaw. When they weren’t in school or playing sports I had them out chopping wood or using the tractor. These days kids spend half their time staring at their phones, getting softer every day. What are they going to do when they face a real challenge? What about the first time they meet a real bully without their parents to back them up?
They’ll react the same way Obama reacts to Putin and all of our enemies, by backing down and letting them walk all over him.
That’s why this affects all of us. Weak and lazy kids grow up to be weak and lazy adults who elect weak and lazy leaders. When he isn’t on vacation, Obama and his buddies are busy putting us further and further in debt to fund a lazy and dependent lifestyle. They are mortgaging our future to pay for college educations for kids who barely finished high school, and hip replacements for people who haven’t paid a dime in taxes in their entire lives. It’s destroying the country.
At least all the young Democrats who elected Obama and the meatheads in Congress are going to reap what they’ve sown. If they ever get productive jobs, every dime they earn is going to go to paying off all the pensions and health care plans that they voted for. Part of me wishes that I were going to be around to see the looks on their faces!
Americans need to wake up fast, or else it will be too late. We are going to see the consequences of what happens when duty and responsibility disappear and are replaced by selfishness.
Welcome to modern day America, a country filled with spoiled, weak people who expect someone to solve all of their problems for them. That’s what happens when you have a generation raised by hippies who never punished their children and told them that the world was their oyster. Young people today don’t know how to take care of themselves, and they expect the government to take care of their every need.
When my boys were small I taught them how to hunt, how to clean a fish, how to use a chainsaw. When they weren’t in school or playing sports I had them out chopping wood or using the tractor. These days kids spend half their time staring at their phones, getting softer every day. What are they going to do when they face a real challenge? What about the first time they meet a real bully without their parents to back them up?
They’ll react the same way Obama reacts to Putin and all of our enemies, by backing down and letting them walk all over him.
That’s why this affects all of us. Weak and lazy kids grow up to be weak and lazy adults who elect weak and lazy leaders. When he isn’t on vacation, Obama and his buddies are busy putting us further and further in debt to fund a lazy and dependent lifestyle. They are mortgaging our future to pay for college educations for kids who barely finished high school, and hip replacements for people who haven’t paid a dime in taxes in their entire lives. It’s destroying the country.
At least all the young Democrats who elected Obama and the meatheads in Congress are going to reap what they’ve sown. If they ever get productive jobs, every dime they earn is going to go to paying off all the pensions and health care plans that they voted for. Part of me wishes that I were going to be around to see the looks on their faces!
Americans need to wake up fast, or else it will be too late. We are going to see the consequences of what happens when duty and responsibility disappear and are replaced by selfishness.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
My First Post
Hi there. I’m Bruce.
I am a proud American, an avid hunter, and a lifelong resident of the Bluegrass State. Ever since my retirement last year I have been trying — and failing — to settle into the retired life. It has been pretty hard for me to relax and enjoy all this new free time, especially with what everything that is happening to my country. America is going down the tubes!
Some people might be content sitting back while the USA becomes the USSR, but not me. I am not going down without a fight. I used to talk about this stuff with the guys at work. Now I’m going to try doing it here.
Other than politics, I plan on writing about some of the other things that I care about, like UK basketball and hunting deer in the hills of eastern Kentucky.
You won’t hear much about my family, though. Call me a conspiracy theorist but we all know that the NSA can track down anyone who posts anything online. So I am going to ease into things. And you don’t have to be a web guru (and I’m not one) to know that anything you put on the Internet is out there for good.
And so, here we go. If nobody reads this other than the Mrs. and the couple of friends who actually know how to use a computer, at least it will be a good way to blow off steam…
I am a proud American, an avid hunter, and a lifelong resident of the Bluegrass State. Ever since my retirement last year I have been trying — and failing — to settle into the retired life. It has been pretty hard for me to relax and enjoy all this new free time, especially with what everything that is happening to my country. America is going down the tubes!
Some people might be content sitting back while the USA becomes the USSR, but not me. I am not going down without a fight. I used to talk about this stuff with the guys at work. Now I’m going to try doing it here.
Other than politics, I plan on writing about some of the other things that I care about, like UK basketball and hunting deer in the hills of eastern Kentucky.
You won’t hear much about my family, though. Call me a conspiracy theorist but we all know that the NSA can track down anyone who posts anything online. So I am going to ease into things. And you don’t have to be a web guru (and I’m not one) to know that anything you put on the Internet is out there for good.
And so, here we go. If nobody reads this other than the Mrs. and the couple of friends who actually know how to use a computer, at least it will be a good way to blow off steam…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)