19 January 2013

Thoughts on Obama's Recent Second Amendment Assaults


After reading Whiskey’s post and the comments, here are my thoughts on what will happen. I don’t think gun owners will resist en masse; I think that they’ll meekly go along for the most part.

One the character of America now vs 1775 (Lexington & Concord) is greater than the difference between night and day. Lexington & Concord were sparked by a British attempt to seize weapons from the colonists. Modern day Lexington & Concord, Massachusetts are enclaves of white, liberal elitism now. Another thing to consider is that we put up with ten times more gov’t abuse than the colonists ever did! Do you think they would go along with a gov’t telling them what kind of light bulbs they could buy? Do you think the colonists would tolerate a government telling them what toilets they could have in their homes? No, they would not; however, we see Americans meekly going along with this rampant gov’t intrusion without so much as a whimper.

Secondly, gun owners have, for decades, tolerated assaults on the Second Amendment, and they have done so with little or no opposition. They didn’t dig in their heels when the Sullivan gun law was passed in NY in 1911; they didn’t object to the Firearms Act of 1934, which prohibited fully automatic weapons; they didn’t protest the Gun Control Act of 1968; gun owners didn’t vigorously protest a multitude of other infringements on the Second Amendment over the years. Do you really think that they’ll object to registration? Do you really think that they’ll object to the gov’t confiscating their guns? I don’t.

At this point, I’ll interject a personal story, since I recently tried to buy a gun. I went to a local gun shop, filled out the forms, and they did the check. It was denied, I suspect, because of a false accusation of domestic violence from years ago. I don’t even think about that most days; it’s not something I think about during my daily life, but it’s come back to haunt me. Well, since I can’t guy a gun from a shop, I’ve gone about trying to procure one privately. One avenue I tried was armslist.com.

I tried procuring a rifle, since they’re not, according to my local state law, subject to mandatory transfer at a firearms dealer. In my state, when one buys a handgun, whether from a shop or private dealer, one has to have the background check done; one has to go through an FFL to transfer a handgun. When one buys a rifle or shotgun (a ‘long arm’), one does not; you can buy a rifle or shotgun the same as you would a car: hand over the cash, take the merchandise, and you're done. Well, the one guy I contacted on Armslist would not agree to doing a straight up, private transfer of ownership; he was adamant about going to the dealer to have it done, even though local state law does not REQUIRE him to do so. Even if I were an ATF or state agent, I couldn’t have nailed the guy for anything, because doing a private transfer of a rifle is legal where I live. It struck me as a fearful, submissive attitude.

I’ll give you another example. I know a guy (who’s a conservative who owns his own contracting business) who’s into guns. I asked him about going outside legal channels to own a gun. I explained to him that, after gun owners in NY State were outed by a local newspaper recently, I didn’t want a record because I don’t want the same thing happening to me. A few of those folks have already been robbed, thanks to the NY Journal-News map. Secondly, it’s none of the government’s BUSINESS whether or not I own a gun! Thirdly, after studying the Second Amendment and its history (mainly what the Founding Fathers said about it), it’s my understanding that any FREE MAN is allowed to keep and bear arms-end of story; anything that gets in the way of that is an infringement on the Second Amendment. That means that the Gun Control Act of 1968, which first prohibited convicted felons from owning guns, is an infringement on the Second Amendment. If they’ve served their time and have been released, they’re free men, are they not? So, isn’t the prohibition of convicted, but released, felons (who are now FREE MEN) an INFRINGEMENT on the Second Amendment? Finally, since the Constitution is SUPPOSED to trump all; since it’s supposed to trump all laws made; we’re not obligated to obey them, because they infringe on a key amendment of our Bill of Rights. IOW, the Second Amendment gives all free men the right to keep & bear arms-simple as that.

Anyway, this contractor I know (who I’ll call Dan, not his real name) got all concerned, saying that what I was wanting to do (try to buy a gun on the black market) was a felony, that I could go to jail, etc. He said that, even though he knew things about getting guns outside of official channels, he would not tell me. His attitude was fearful and submissive, or so I thought. If he’s an example of your typical gun owner (and I believe he is), then I don’t expect our gun owners to put up much of a fight for when the gov’t does come to take away Americans’ guns. They can cry ‘molon labe’ all they want; they can talk about gov’t officials prying their guns from their cold, dead fingers; when push comes to shove, they’ll turn in their guns like the good, little sheep that they are.

One particularly dangerous piece of legislation that gun owners and the NRA went along with was the Brady Law; that law first instituted the waiting period, followed by the instant background checks. This is bad, because it amounts to prospective gun owners, in effect, asking PERMISSION from a gov’t bureaucrat to exercise what is their right; oh, please, please, please let me have my rights, Massa! The sad part is that gun owners and the NRA went along with this, thinking that they’d won a victory back in the 1990s; it was anything but! The Brady Law, in effect, turned our Second Amendment rights into a privilege. If we have to ask permission to do anything, then it is not a right-end of story.  The Brady Law did more than anything else to gut the Second Amendment.

Before I close this out, let’s look at how most gun owners talk these days; let’s look at how they’ve adopted the language and terminology of the left, shall we? When listening to the conservative pundits (Rush, Hannity, and Levin); when reading these discussions here and elsewhere; many talk about how they’re ‘legal gun owners’. Stop and THINK about that for a minute. In effect, they’re saying that they’ve jumped through all the government’s hoops (read restrictions, which are BS); that they’ve gotten permission from the authorities; and that they’ve now been allowed to own their guns. Stop and think about that! The very fact that most gun owners talk like that means that they’ve bought in to the numerous infringements on the Second Amendment; it means that they’re okay with said infringements; finally, it means that they won’t OBJECT to further restrictions on their Second Amendment rights. Why? Because they’re good, little, ‘legal gun owners’, that’s why! If they’ve already bought into surrendering the Second Amendment (and they have, because they anxiously seek permission from ‘the authorities’-a fine, totalitarian phrase), then why would the fight and die for their right? How can they when they’ve already SURRENDERED that right? As I’ve stated above, when you have to seek permission to do something, it is no longer a right; at that point, it becomes nothing more than a privilege.

In closing, since gun owners have gone along with the already numerous infringements on the Second Amendment; since gun owners have done so for years; since they’ve done so with nary a whimper; I don’t expect gun owners in America to resist en masse.  They can cry 'molon labe' all they want, but they don't really MEAN it.  They may hide their guns, but they won't point them at gov't agents in an open act of defiance. Those gun owners who I have personally encountered as of late are fearful of the gov’t; they’re fearful to the point of being submissive. Since gun owners went along with the Brady Law with little or no protest; since they ACQUIESCED to basically asking permission from gov’t officials to buy guns; they will NOT stand firm and die for their right to own guns. No, when the gov’t comes for our guns (and make no mistake about it, that IS their ultimate aim), most gun owners will meekly turn in their weapons, and our subjugation will be complete.


15 January 2013

Wrong about Lance Armstrong


I was wrong about Lance Armstrong.  Yesterday, he confessed to using performance enhancing drugs.  I'll have more to say about this soon...


11 January 2013

Brent Musberger's Comment


As those of you in the US know, the BCS National Championship game was played this past Monday.  Alabama beat Notre Dame 42-14, which is a blowout.  Even during the first quarter, it was obvious that the game wasn't going to be close, so the announcers had to find something else to talk about; they had to find some filler.

They found that filler in the form of Katherine Webb, girlfriend of Alabama quarterback AJ McCarron.  Miss Webb also happens to be 2012 Miss Alabama USA, so you know she's a beautiful, young woman.  Mr. Musberger's crime was to comment on this, and to discuss it with his colleague, Kirk Herbstreit.  Mr. Herbstreit was a quarterback for Ohio State who didn't play in the NFL; that's important, because Mr. Musberger alludes to quarterbacks getting all the pretty girls.

Well, we can't have that now!  We can't have two men pointing out the obvious: that Miss Katherine Webb is beautiful; why, that's objectifying and demeaning her!  That's what the feminists said anyway.  ESPN felt compelled to issue an apology.  Thank goodness Mr. Musberger had enough stones to not apologize.  One, because he didn't kowtow to the feminists; that's a small victory of sorts.  Second, he didn't do anything wrong, so there was no need to apologize.  Here's the clip in question...

Oh, by the way, Katherine Webb was interviewed on the Today Show.  She wasn't the least bit offended; if anything, she appreciated the compliment.  Take THAT, feminists!

Then, I heard that Kathy Griffin performed simulated, oral sex on Anderson Cooper during CNN's New Year's Eve coverage.  There was NO OUTRAGE WHATSOEVER from feminists, the national media, or their PC fascist lackeys.  Did anyone hear any outrage over what Griffin did?  I didn't.  Ah, but what Griffin did was okay, because: 1) she's a woman; 2) she's a feminist (redundant?); 3) CNN is a socialist network.  It's all right when a socialist, PC fascist does something outrageous.  Here's the clip.  Warning: this is NOT suitable for kids!

Don't you just LOVE the double standard, folks?  Don't you just love how feminists and women (redundant?  Sometimes I wonder) screech like crazy about Brent Musberger's harmless comment?  Don't you just love how they totally gave Kathy Griffin and Anderson Cooper a pass for simulated oral sex on TV?!  THAT was the truly outrageous deed, but nothing was said about that-oh no.  No, what got discussed was the-gasp-'horror' of Brent Musberger pointing out that a beautiful woman is, in fact, beautiful.

In closing, Brent Musberger did nothing wrong.  He and Kirk Herbstreit were trying to talk about something other than the football game, which had already become a predictable, boring blowout.  Shame on ESPN for backing down and apologizing; shame on them!  Messrs. Musberger and Herbstreit, thankfully, had some stones; neither one of them as of right now, has apologized; neither one of them have caved into feminists ridiculous demands.  What really should have been disparaged was Kathy Griffin's trashy act during the CNN New Year's Eve broadcast, but that was swept under the rug.  I shouldn't have expected anything different though.  Have a good day now...