I guess only left wingers need respond

I use google to search for a lot of things. One of those things are any news stories or blog posts about concealed carry items. Well, I found a blog post on the recent Students for Concealed Carry's latest effort to get the laws changed so that those of us with CCW permits would be allowed to protect our selves on school/university property.

This "movement" took root last year after the debacle at Virginia Tech. There are many who suggest that had even one of the students who have a valid CCW permit, had been allowed to carry his or her weapon, that the killer might have been stopped much sooner.

Then again, there are those who think the death toll might have been even higher. I guess they haven't seen the stories about the school shootings that were cut short by armed students and faculty. Then again, it's not like the MSM (Main Stream Media) covers those stories with any great frequency. After all, there is little news if no one is killed.

In any event, if you click on the title of this article, it will take you to another blog, and a specific opinion, "Sheer Folly." I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. He is, after all, seeking a major in philosophy. :) In any event, rather than repeat much or, any of his musings here, I'll leave it to you, my readers (sparse though you may be) to check it out for yourselves.

As to any of his conclusions, I'll simply point you to GunFacts for the truth.

As far as replies to his original post, I'll only state that I know there's at least one other post that has not yet been approved as of the date this message was first posted. Why not? Probably because I point out that CCW permit holders are generally more law-abiding than the general public. Those who would take away our rights, don't like to be told that some of their ideas and conclusions might be wrong.


Current Mood: Sad (I have a cold, so I don't feel well.)
Current Music: Key West - The Village People
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9mm

Charlton Heston on the 2nd Amendment

Charlton Heston on the 2nd Amendment
February 11, 1997
National Press Club
February 11, 1997

Today I want to talk to you about guns: Why we have them, why the Bill of Rights guarantees that we can have them, and why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press.

I believe every good journalist needs to know why the Second Amendment must be considered more essential than the First Amendment. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the right to keep and bear arms is not archaic. It's not an outdated, dusty idea some old dead white guys dreamed up in fear of the Redcoats. No, it is just as essential to liberty today as it was in 1776. These words may not play well at the Press Club, but it's still the gospel down at the corner bar and grill.

And your efforts to undermine the Second Amendment, to deride it and degrade it, to readily accept diluting it and eagerly promote redefining it, threaten not only the physical well-being of millions of Americans but also the core concept of individual liberty our founding fathers struggled to perfect and protect.

So now you know what doubtless does not surprise you. I believe strongly in the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, for what I think are good reasons.

The original amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights contain 10 of what the constitutional framers termed unalienable rights. These rights are ranked in random order and are linked by their essential equality. The Bill of Rights came to us with blinders on. It doesn't recognize color, or class or wealth. It protects not just the rights of actors, or editors, or reporters, but extends even to those we love to hate. That's why the most heinous criminals have rights until they are convicted of a crime.

The beauty of the Constitution can be found in the way it takes human nature into consideration. We are not a docile species capable of co-existing within a perfect society under everlasting benevolent rule.

We are what we are. Egotistical, corruptible, vengeful, sometimes even a bit power-mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual.

You, of course, remain zealous in your belief that a free nation must have a free press and free speech to battle injustice, unmask corruption and provide a voice for those in need of a fair and impartial forum.

I agree wholeheartedly -- a free press is vital to a free society. But I wonder: How many of you will agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy?

I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows 'rights' to exist at all.

Either you believe that, or you don't, and you must decide.

Because there is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not. That's a 'big brother knows best' theater of the absurd that has never bode well for the peasant class, the working class or even for reporters.

Yes, our Constitution provides the doorway for your news and commentary to pass through free and unfettered. But that doorway to freedom is framed by the muskets that stood between a vision of liberty and absolute anarchy at a place called Concord Bridge. Our revolution began when the British sent Redcoats door to door to confiscate the people's guns. They didn't succeed: The muskets went out the back door with their owners.

Emerson said it best:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

King George called us "rabble in arms." But with God's grace, George Washington and many brave men gave us our country. Soon after, God's grace and a few great men gave us our Constitution. It's been said that the creation of the United States is the greatest political act in history. I'll sign that.

In the next two centuries, though, freedom did not flourish. The next revolution, the French, collapsed in bloody Terror, then Napoleon's tyranny. There's been no shortage of dictators since, in many countries. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot. All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then literally soaking the earth with the blood of ten and tens of millions of their people. Ah, the joys of gun control.

Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder. Yet in essence that is what you have asked our loved ones to do, through the ill-contrived and totally naive campaign against the Second Amendment.

Besides, how can we entrust to you the Second Amendment when you are so stingy with your own First Amendment?

I say this because of the way, in recent days, you have treated your own -- those journalists you consider the least among you. How quick you've been to finger the paparazzi with blame and to eye the tabloids with disdain. How eager you've been to draw a line where there is none, to demand some distinction within the First Amendment that sneers 'they are not one of us.' How readily you let your lesser brethren
take the fall, as if their rights were not as worthy, and their purpose not as pure, and their freedom not as sacred as yours.

So now, as politicians consider new laws to shackle and gag paprazzi, who among you will speak up? Who here will stand and defend them? If you won't, I will. Because you do not define the First Amendment. It defines you. And it is bigger than you -- big enough to embrace all of you, plus all those you would exclude. That's how freedom works.

It also demands you do your homework. Again and again I hear gun owners say, how can we believe anything that anti-gun media says when they cannot even get the facts right? For too long you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-auto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time.

Thats why you have very little credibility among 70 million gun owners and 20 million hunters and millions of veterans who learned the hard way which end the bullet comes out. And while you attacked the amendment that defends your homes and protects your spouses and children, you have denied those of us who defend all the Bill of Rights a fair hearing or the courtesy of an honest debate.

If the NRA attempts to challenge your assertions, we are ignored. And if we try to buy advertising time or space to answer your charges, more often than not we are denied. How's that for First Amendment freedom?

Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. In doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition's tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional right, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed.

As a veteran of World War II, as a freedom marcher who stood with Dr. Martin Luther King long before it was fashionable, and as a grandfather who wants the coming century to be free and full of promise for my grandchildren, I am troubled.

The right to keep and bear arms is threatened by political theatrics, piecemeal lawmaking, talk-show psychology, extreme bad taste in the entertainment industry, an ever-widening educational chasm in our schools and a conniving media, that all add up to cultural warfare against the idea that guns ever had, or should now have, an honorable and proud place in our society.

But all our rights must be delivered into the 21st century as pure and complete as they came to us at the beginning of this century. Traditionally the passing of that torch is from a gnarled old hand down to an eager young one. So now, at 72, I offer my gnarled old hand.

I have accepted a call from the National Rifle Association of America to help protect the Second Amendment. I feel it is my duty to do that. My mission and vision can be summarized in three simple parts.

First, before we enter the next century, I expect to see a pro-Second Amendment president in the White House.

Secondly, I expect to build an NRA with the political muscle and clout to keep a pro-Second Amendment congress in place.

Third is a promise to the next generation of free Americans. I hope to help raise a hundred million dollars for NRA programs and education before the year 2000. At least half of that sum will go to teach American kids what the right to keep and bear arms really means to their culture and country.

We have raised a generation of young people who think that the Bill of Rights comes with their cable TV. Leave them to their channel surfing and they'll remain oblivious to history and heritage that truly matter.

Think about it -- what else must young Americans think when the White House proclaims, as it did, that 'a firearm in the hands of youth is a crime or an accident waiting to happen'? No -- it is time they learned that firearm ownership is constitutional, not criminal. In fact, few pursuits can teach a young person more about responsibility, safety, conservation, their history and their heritage, all at once.

It is time they found out that the politically correct doctrine of today has misled them. And that when they reach legal age, if they do not break our laws, they have a right to choose to own a gun -- a handgun, a long gun, a small gun, a large gun, a black gun, a purple gun, a pretty gun, an ugly gun -- and to use that gun to defend themselves and their loved ones or to engage in any lawful purpose they desire without apology or explanation to anyone, ever.

This is their first freedom. If you say it's outdated, then you haven't read your own headlines. If you say guns create only carnage, I would answer that you know better. Declining morals, disintegrating families, vacillation political leadership, an eroding criminal justice system and social morals that blur right and wrong are more to blame -- certainly more than any legally owned firearm.

I want to rescue the Second Amendment from an opportunistic president, and from a press that apparently can't comprehend that attacks on the Second Amendment set the stage for assaults on the First.

I want to save the Second Amendment from all these nitpicking little wars af attrition -- fights over alleged Saturday night specials, plastic guns, cop killer bullets and so many other made-for-prime-time non-issues invented by some press agent over at gun control headquarters -- that you guys buy time and again.

I simply cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come under attack from those who either can't understand it, don't like the sound of it or find themselves too philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals: Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails.

That's why the Second Amendment is America's first freedom.

Please, go forth and tell the truth. There can be no free speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to protest, no freedom to worship you god, no freedom to speak your mind, no freedom from fear, no freedom for your children and for theirs, for anybody, anywhere without the Second Amendment freedom to fight for it.

If you don't believe me, just turn on the news tonight. Civilizations veneer is wearing thinner all the time.

Thank you.

Charlton Heston died Saturday, April 4, 2008. May he rest in Peace.


Current Mood: Sad
Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Para Ordnance P14.45

Left Wing Democratic Senators Try to get back at Rush.

Democrats Get Personal Against Limbaugh

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 8:27 AM

Written by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) leveled a personal attack at radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh from the Senate floor on Monday.

In a speech blasting Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" comment, Harkin concluded, "Well, I don't know, maybe he (Limbaugh) was just high on his drugs again. I don't know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know, but that shouldn't be an excuse.

"I want to make it clear that I respect Mr. Limbaugh's right to say whatever he wants, but we also have a right," Harkin said. "We have a right not to listen to him. I think the best thing to do for him is tune him out. Just tune out Rush Limbaugh and listen to more responsible talk show hosts in this country."

Three years ago, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Authorization bill, calling on American Forces Radio and Television Service to provide "political balance" in its public affairs programming. (See story)

It was part of a liberal effort -- spearheaded by Media Matters for America -- to remove Rush Limbaugh's radio show from taxpayer-funded Armed Forces Radio.
(To read the whole story, click on the Link above)

I have to tell you, this makes me mad. Dingy Harry and his ilk, going after Rush, misquoting him ON PURPOSE, to make it look like Rush called ALL American Service men and women "phony." Rush did NOTHING OF THE KIND. If you want to know what's really going on, read the real story here. I heard this from Rush before the SHAMEFUL attack on him from the Senate floor. I knew then what he was talking about. But, ever on the lookout to find something to use against him, his left wing enemies, as usual heard what they wanted to here, and not what was actually said.

Come on Senators, get the ear wax out of your ears!! I think YOU owe Rush an apology.

Current Mood: I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore.
Current Music: The Village People - "Macho Man"
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

History Channel: Tales of the Gun - Automatic Pistols: A Review

For those of you not familiar with "The History Channel," they have a series titled "Tales of the Gun." There are many different subjects in this series, about different types of guns. This review is about Automatic Pistols.

This episode tells the story of automatic pistols, from the first one, until present day. Or at least until the day the episode was made. I sat through this one, several times, thinking I was going to catch a mistake. The only thing I could really find was one of the historians had a bad habit of putting his finger on the trigger, when he shouldn't. Lots of people make that mistake.

The only other "mistake" might be the description of the M1911 Colt .45 as having stopping power, by the Late, Ian V. Hogg. I know some people will disagree with me on this, insisting that the M1911 is a great man-stopper. Even if I were to point to verified incidents where people who were shot with a .45, were not stopped or put down. Regardless, there is also much anecdotal evidence that says it is a great man-stopper, and this review is not about disputing that in either direction.

I wish they had covered more, as there are so many different models that have been and are being made, but this program was made to fit within an hour time slot, complete with commercials (Which are not included in the DVD, thankfully). A more in-depth show on this subject, would likely take more than a few hours. But for the time alloted, I think this does an excellent job.

For those who want to know, this episode gives some details on the Borchardt C93, Mauser C96, Browning Pocket pistol, Colt 1903, 1911, the Webley-Fosbery Automatic Revolver, Luger, Walther PP, PPK, and P-38, the Roth-Steyr, Beretta 92, and various Glock pistols. It also delves into the future just a bit with discussion on the "safe" pistol. The model that various companies (Colt is the one in this episode) are working on, that can only be fired by the owner.

In any event, I could not really find any historical (or ANY) fault with this episode of "Tales of the Gun." As with all the other episodes I've ever seen in this series, The History Channel does not go into the pros or cons of gun ownership, although, in their intro to the section on the "safe" pistol, they do mention the possible, results that can happen when pistols fall into the wrong hands. Regardless, I highly recommend it to those interested in the subject.

Current Mood: Content
Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Para-Ordnance P14.45

General Lies and Power

WHAT IF, Moveon.org had existed during World War II? Would we have seen an ad like this?



Unfortunately, I think we would have. Assuming they could have found a newspaper back then that would have printed it. During WWII, the News media was not as "un" biased, and as "un" patriotic as it is today. Back then, the troops in the field were "our boys."

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: The Village People - "Macho Man"
My Carry Pistol: EAA Witness 10mm

eBay's latest ANTI-Freedom announcement

Hello everyone…In mid-August, we will be updating our Firearms, Weapons and Knives Policy to place more restrictions around gun-related items. Once these changes take effect, we will prohibit listings of any firearm part that is required for the firing of a gun. This includes items like bullet tips, brass casings and shells, barrels, slides, cylinders, magazines, firing pins, trigger assemblies, etc. Please read the Firearms, Weapons and Knives Policy for more details on our current policy.

As you may know, eBay does not allow the listing of any items which are regulated by individual states or the federal government; however, there are still a large number of firearm-related parts that are legal and are widely available in retail stores. These items have also historically been allowed on eBay.

After learning that some items purchased on eBay may have been used in the tragedy at Virginia Tech in April 2007, we felt that revisiting our policies was not only necessary, but the right thing to do. After much consideration, the Trust & Safety policy team – along with our executive leaders at eBay Inc. – have made the decision to further restrict more of these items than federal and state regulations require.

This new update continues to encourage safety among our community members and brings our policies in the U.S. and Canada in closer alignment with our existing policies in other markets around the globe.

Sincerely,

Matt Halprin
Vice President, Trust & Safety

That's ok. I haven't done much on eBay anyway, so dumping them won't bother me in the slightest.

I suppose if I sold cars, and someone I sold a Chevy to, went and ran someone over with it, I'd have to stop selling Chevys. Makes a lot of sense, don't it.


Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: "In The Navy" by The Village People
My Carry Pistol: EAA Witness 10mm

Some good News from the House of Representatives....for a change.

By ANDREW TAYLOR,
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Pro-gun rights Democrats teamed with House Republicans on Thursday to block local governments and law enforcement agencies from gaining routine access to gun-purchasing data.

The House Appropriations Committee defeated two attempts by gun control advocates to strip four-year-old restrictions on the use of information from Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tracing gun sales. The votes were a victory for the National Rifle Association and came despite the Democratic takeover of Congress in
January.

The committee's emotional debate often focused on broader gun rights issues rather than the matter at hand, involving when the bureau can share such information.

Gun control advocates say the gun sales data is essential to uncovering dealers who sell guns that disproportionately end up in the hands of criminals.

Gun rights advocates, led by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., said mayors such as New York City's Michael Bloomberg want the data to sue out-of-state gun dealers.

Tiahrt, the key sponsor of the restrictions on sharing gun trace data, also said easing the restrictions could lead to the disclosure of police officers' identities and other details to criminals.

"What the Tiahrt amendment does is protect those who protect us," Tiahrt said.

Pro-gun advocates say the data-sharing restrictions protect gun owners' privacy. But Bloomberg and other mayors contend they hamper law enforcement authorities' ability to trace illegal guns and arrest weapons traffickers.

"This handcuffs the cops, not the criminals," said Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-Md.

More than a dozen Democrats, most from rural districts, joined with all but two committee Republicans to defeat a bid by Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to ease the data sharing restrictions but ensure that police officers' names would not be compromised.

Earlier, a bid by Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., to reject Tiahrt's language altogether lost by a voice vote.

The mayors say gun tracing data helps police departments determine the source of illegal guns, who buys them and how they are distributed.

Almost three-fifths of guns used in crimes are sold by just 1 percent of gun dealers, who forge relationship with gun traffickers making multiple purchases.

Under Bloomberg, who recently left the GOP amid speculation he may run for president as an independent, the city has sued out-of-state gun dealers in an attempt to reduce the flow of illegal guns into New York. The NRA-backed restrictions block cities from getting ATF data for such suits.

The committee chairman, Rep. David Obey — a liberal Democrat representing a rural Wisconsin district — said the issue was only marginally related to gun rights. He opposed the efforts to ease the data restrictions.

But Obey lashed out at both the NRA, which failed to endorse him in his most recent race despite his pro-gun rights record, and Bloomberg. He said the mayor's representatives met with his staff and threatened to run television ads attacking him.

Lindsay Ellenbogen, a Bloomberg aide, denied any threats. Bloomberg is co-chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Gun Sales, which has run ads in a few congressional districts.

"As happens too often in Washington, common sense didn't carry the day — special interests did," Bloomberg said.

Thursday's result continued a run of back luck on Capitol Hill for gun control advocates. They have lost many times since a Democratic-controlled Congress pushed through an assault weapons ban in 1994. Many Democrats credited the ban for losses in rural seats as the party took a drubbing at the polls that year.

The return of Congress to Democratic hands did not appreciably hurt the NRA's position because many of the newcomers are from rural, pro-gun rights districts.

"To allow this information to be misused by trial lawyers and gun control groups who want to sue gun manufacturers because criminals misused legally made and legally sold guns is not only bad policy but bad politics," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's top lobbyist.

The votes came as the committee approved a $53.6 billion bill for the departments of Commerce and Justice, as well as NASA and science programs.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Rob Zombie - Dragula (Hot Rod Herman Remix)
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS

Michael Moore's Open Letter to CNN

An Open Letter to CNN from Michael Moore
7/14/07

Dear CNN,

Well, the week is over -- and still no apology, no retraction, no correction of your glaring mistakes.

I bet you thought my dust-up with Wolf Blitzer was just a cool ratings coup, that you really wouldn't have to correct the false statements you made about "Sicko." I bet you thought I was just going to go quietly away.

Think again. I'm about to become your worst nightmare. 'Cause I ain't ever going away. Not until you set the record straight, and apologize to your viewers. "The Most Trusted Name in News?" I think it's safe to say you can retire that slogan.

You have an occasional segment called "Keeping Them Honest." But who keeps you honest? After what the public saw with your report on "Sicko," and how many inaccuracies that report contained, how can anyone believe anything you say on your network? In the old days, before the Internet, you could get away with it. Your victims had no way to set the record straight, to show the viewers how you had misrepresented the truth. But now, we can post the truth -- and back it up with evidence and facts -- on the web, for all to see. And boy, judging from the mail both you and I have been receiving, the evidence I have posted on my site about your "Sicko" piece has led millions now to question your honesty.

I won't waste your time rehashing your errors. You know what they are. What I want to do is help you come clean. Admit you were wrong. What is the shame in that? We all make mistakes. I know it's hard to admit it when you've screwed up, but it's also liberating and cathartic. It not only makes you a better person, it helps prevent you from screwing up again. Imagine how many people will be drawn to a network that says, "We made a mistake. We're human. We're sorry. We will make mistakes in the future -- but we will always correct them so that you know you can trust us." Now, how hard would that really be?

As you know, I hold no personal animosity against you or any of your staff. You and your parent company have been very good to me over the years. You distributed my first film, "Roger & Me" and you published "Dude, Where's My Country?" Larry King has had me on twice in the last two weeks. I couldn't ask for better treatment.

That's why I was so stunned when you let a doctor who knows a lot about brain surgery -- but apparently very little about public policy -- do a "fact check" story, not on the medical issues in "Sicko," but rather on the economic and political information in the film. Is this why there has been a delay in your apology, because you are trying to get a DOCTOR to say he was wrong? Please tell him not to worry, no one is filing a malpractice claim against him. Dr. Gupta does excellent and compassionate stories on CNN about people's health and how we can take better care of ourselves. But when it came time to discuss universal health care, he rushed together a bunch of sloppy -- and old -- research. When his producer called us about his report the day before it aired, we sent to her, in an email, all the evidence so that he wouldn't make any mistakes on air. He chose to ignore ALL the evidence, and ran with all his falsehoods -- even though he had been given the facts a full day before! How could that happen? And now, for 5 days, I have posted on my website, for all to see, every mistake and error he made.

You, on the other hand, in the face of this overwhelming evidence and a huge public backlash, have chosen to remain silent, probably praying and hoping this will all go away.

Well it isn't. We are now going to start looking into the veracity of other reports you have aired on other topics. Nothing you say now can be believed. In 2002, the New York Times busted you for bringing celebrities on your shows and not telling your viewers they were paid spokespeople for the pharmaceutical companies. You promised never to do it again. But there you were, in 2005, talking to Joe Theismann, on air, as he pushed some drug company-sponsored website on prostate health. You said nothing about about his affiliation with GlaxoSmithKline.

Clearly, no one is keeping you honest, so I guess I'm going to have to do that job, too. $1.5 billion is spent each year by the drug companies on ads on CNN and the other four networks. I'm sure that has nothing to do with any of this. After all, if someone gave me $1.5 billion, I have to admit, I might say a kind word or two about them. Who wouldn't?!

I expect CNN to put this matter to rest. Say you're sorry and correct your story -- like any good journalist would.

Then we can get back to more important things. Like a REAL discussion about our broken health care system. Everything else is a distraction from what really matters.

Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. If you also want to apologize for not doing your job at the start of the Iraq War, I'm sure most Americans would be very happy to accept your apology. You and the other networks were willing partners with Bush, flying flags all over the TV screens and never asking the hard questions that you should have asked. You might have prevented a war. You might have saved the lives of those 3,610 soldiers who are no longer with us. Instead, you blew air kisses at a commander in chief who clearly was making it all up. Millions of us knew that -- why didn't you? I think you did. And, in my opinion, that makes you responsible for this war. Instead of doing the job the founding fathers wanted you to do -- keeping those in power honest (that's why they made it the FIRST amendment) -- you and much of the media went on the attack against the few public figures like myself who dared to question the nightmare we were about to enter. You've never thanked me or the Dixie Chicks or Al Gore for doing your job for you. That's OK. Just tell the truth from this point on.

What really gets me, is his last sentence, in his PS. "Just tell the truth from this point on." GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK! He wants CNN to tell the truth? How about a little truth from him, for a change? SHEESH!!


  Current Mood: Amused
  Current Music: Rob Zombie - Dragula
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9mm NATO

A question for Media Matters dot org

On their site, under "About us," they start out with the following paragraph.

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

So, if they're watching the conservative media, who's monitoring the Liberal media? It seems to me that any organization that wanted to monitor the liberal media, would need a HUGE staff, just to keep track of all the misinformation they broadcast.

But, can some one tell me WHAT misinformation the conservative media is passing out?

  Current Mood: Amused
  Current Music: Village People - In The Navy
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9mm NATO

R. Lee Ermey speaks up on RKBA

Our Favorite Gunny, R. Lee Ermey on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.




Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: Village People - In the Navy
   Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

HR 2640, Gun Owners of America, World Net Daily get it all wrong

Your doctor could put you on no-gun list

This is how WND's article (written by Naomi Laine) starts out. (If you want to read their article, click on the title of this one, it's a direct link)

What they don't tell you is, you doctor can ONLY put you on the list with a court order. That's under the NEW rules. The new rules also, FINALLY give us a way to appeal these decisions. Oh, the old rules had an appeals process too, but they were not funded, so there was no effective way to appeal being put on the "no guns allowed" list. HR2640 fixes that problem.

But GOA would have us all believe it's another way to "curtail" our ability to own guns, as if the NRA would really stand for that. The NRA worked very hard to make sure this would NOT affect lawful gun owners. I think they succeeded rather well.

If you don't believe me, go read the bill yourself. You can find it at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640.

I challenge ANYONE to read this law and find where it says, or implicates that any doctor can put you on the "no guns allowed" list on his say so, alone, without adjudication, and/or without being involuntarily committed.

Current Mood: Pissed off
Current Music: None
   Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS

An Immigration Survey

The News Media and Immigration Attitudes
This survey is designed to help us understand what Americans like you think about immigration and the news media. We are very interested in your thoughts on this matter and greatly appreciate your participation.

Click here to take the survey:
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/crweber/TAKESURVEY/videohuddy.htm

Chicago Priest calls for murder of gun shop owner

ISRA: Chicago Priest Calls for Murder of Gun Shop Owner

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):
Nobody expected Saturday's Operation PUSH protest at Chuck's Gun Shop & Range to be anything other than a circus of the bizarre. However, nobody anticipated that an address by a Chicago priest would include a call for the murder of a suburban gun shop owner and legislators who oppose gun control.
During an address at an anti-gun rally in front of Chuck's, Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's Church, exhorted the crowd to "drag" shop owner, John Riggio, from his shop "like a rat" and "snuff" him. Rev. Pfleger went on to tell the crowd that legislators that vote against gun control legislation should be "snuffed" as well. As many know, "snuff" is slang for especially violent murder.

"Certainly Fr. Pfleger has offered Absolution to a murderer or two during his tenure as a priest," commented ISRA Executive Director, Richard Pearson. "That's why it's shocking to hear him actually advocate the murder of a gun shop owner who has never committed a crime in his life. He then compounds the problem by calling for the murder of legislators who disagree with his personal political views -- something I suspect is a felony in this state. Pfleger's comments were disgusting and dangerous. And, I seem to remember that the Fifth Commandment frowns on murdering one's neighbor."
"This week, I'll be penning a letter to the Archbishop, expressing my concerns over Rev. Pfleger's comments," continued Pearson. "I would hope that the Archbishop would reply with words of comfort for Mr. Riggio, his family, state legislators, and all others who were injured by Rev. Pfleger's thoughtless, inflammatory remarks."
The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful, and responsible firearms ownership. Since 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding firearm Illinois firearm owners.


SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association

Isn't this just great? A Catholic Priest, calling for someone to be murdered?


Current Mood: Angry
Current Music: None
   Carry Pistol: Para-Ordnance P14 .45ACP

2008 Democratic Convention Schedule

(link)
From the Conservative Underground, I found the following.

For the Democratic National Convention for 2008.

7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.
7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:30 till 8:00 P.M. Nonreligious prayer and worship. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.
8:15- 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding-- Barney Frank Presiding.
8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:35 P.M. Free Saddam Rally. Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon.
9:00 P.M. Keynote speech. The proper etiquette for surrender-- French President Jacques Chirac
9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund
9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay by Sean Penn
9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military, A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton
9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented Truth in Broadcasting award, presented by Michael Moore
9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
10:00 P.M. How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers by Howard Dean
10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahmadinejad
11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents Internet
11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War criminals by John Kerry
11:30 P.M. Coronation of Mrs. Rodham Clinton
12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home

I would love to see that convention!

Current Mood: Seriously Amused
Current Music: Village People - Y.M.C.A.
Carry Pistol: Para-Ordnance P14 .45ACP

SPLC Not the group it used to be

Sad news today. With the addition of the Young Americans for Freedom as a hate group by the SPLC, it is apparent now, if it wasn't before that they are no longer, (if they ever were) an unbiased, non-partisan group.

If nothing else, it shows they don't have a sense of humor, and they don't know sarcasm when it hits them in the face. Their "reason" for putting YAF on their list of hate groups, is a list of 13 points.

Having read this list, it's obvious to me that he's being sarcastic. Whether he actually means what he says with any of those 13 points, is quite another question. But to call for the elimination of representation to ASMSU of various minority councils, and in the same list, call for the creation of a "Caucasian student council," a "Man's council," well, if you can't see the sarcasm, get new glasses.

For your edification, here is the list of thirteen points, with some comments by the originator.

I'm dedicated to representing the conservative students of Michigan State University. If you are a leftist, communist, socialist, or moderate, please do not contact me to represent you. You are not my constituent. As your representative, my goals are to do the following:

1. Eliminate funding for all non-heterosexual organizations.

2. Eliminate representation to ASMSU for all of the following groups:
Culturas De Las Razas Unidas, Alliance of LBGT Students, Arab Cultural Society, Asian Pacific American Student Organization, North American Indigenous Student Organization, Black Council, International Student Association, and the Women¹s Council.

3. Allow a Christian organization to be represented on ASMSU.

4. Create a Caucasian Caucus and give them representation on ASMSU.

5. Put a US Flag in every classroom and lecture hall on campus.

6. Reduce the amount of taxes ASMSU gets from the students.

7. Change the MCRI decision that the ASMSU reps made last year.

8. Spend tax money to bring conservative speakers to campus.

9. Create a Man's Council.

10. Force the Planned Parenthood on Grand River Ave. to leave.

11. Hunt down illegal immigrants in the Lansing area and have them deported.

12. Start a sex offender registry and have a link to it on the MSU website.

13. Start a "Straight Club" and give them representation on ASMSU.

If I am forgetting something important, please contact me. I have a few other goals that aren't listed, because steps might possibly be taken by my opponents to stop me from implementing them. Viva Kyle Bristow!

It's also apparent, based on an interview on WJIM talk radio, that State Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer can't see sarcasm either. But what else can we expect from the former lawyer for the KKK?

As far as hunting down illegal aliens, I have no problem with that at all. If they're here illegally, then they are breaking the law, and they should pay for it.
(link1)
(link2)


Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Village People - Macho Man [12" version]
Carry Pistol: Para-Ordnance P14 .45ACP

What is it with the "Hate monger" and "Racist" tags?

Really, I'd like to know. Why is it, those on the political left feel it necessary to call those on the political right things like "racist," "hatemonger," and others. Or course, these people don't stop there. Anyone who comes out in support of Coulter, Limbaugh, or Hannity, get labeled "knuckledraggers."

What gets me is so many on the left claim to be "tolerant" or more accepting of the Gay lifestyle. Yet, when it came down to whether or not to allow Gay marriage, the majority in Michigan voted for an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I find it really strange, when you consider that these same people voted for a democrat for senator, and this same majority gave this state's electoral votes to John Kerry.

With so-called friends like these, I think we're better off with our enemies. At least with them, we know where we stand.

But to get back to Ann Coulter, I suppose I'm just ticked off at the name calling. Yeah, I'm not happy with her use of fag in referring to John Edwards....although, he is kinda cute.

Still, I do understand the context that it was used. She was referring to the incident that occurred among the cast of "Grey's Anatomy." Should she have used something else to insult John Edwards? Maybe. But then it seems to me, in the political scene of pundits, controversy seems to be the name of the game.

So, if I can see it, why can't everyone else? I am not an overly educated person. I graduated from high school, didn't go to college. Partly because I couldn't afford it, mostly because I never really liked school.

As for this person or persons who want to stop Ann from speaking at Cleary U, or rather, they don't want her to get paid for speaking. Having been invited to various Universities myself, I can tell you they just about always pay you for speaking. It's expected. I just wish I could get $30,000.00 for doing so. That would make my decade!



Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: Village People - San Francisco
Carry Pistol: Para-Ordnance P14 .45ACP

So much for tolerant Liberals

(link)

Coulter speech still on
By Dan Meisler
DAILY PRESS & ARGUS

The Coulter show will, apparently, go on.

Cleary University President Tom Sullivan said Thursday in a written statement that the university board's executive committee decided to let the ap-pearance by conservative columnist Ann Coulter scheduled for October proceed....(If you want to read more, click on the "link" above.)

To which I say good for the Cleary University administration. And contrary to popular opinion, Miss Coulter's appearance there does NOT blacken the eye of Livingston County. It can only enhance their reputation for being fair minded. However, if she is "un-invited," it will only prove how bigoted some of the people there truly are.

Of course, this current furor over Ann Coulter only shows how truly UN-tolerant liberals really are. They're all for free speech, as long as it's from THEIR point of view.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with Ann Coulter's comments about "fags" and such. But I don't think her right to speak should be curtailed either. She'll either mend her ways, or she'll dig a hole she can't get out of. So I say, let her dig away!


Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Carry Pistol: EAA Witness 10mm

So Much for Free Speech...Again.

(link)
CNN just announced that CBS has permanently canceled Don Imus' radio show, effective immediately. While I do not listen to Don Imus, nor have I watched his simulcast on MSNBC (which was canceled earlier by MSNBC), I also deplore what is happening to him.

Granted, he made some comments that should not have been said. But I always thought the USA was the land of the free (speech) and home of the brave (can take some insults). Instead I find America is the home of the Politically Correct and the thin skinned. "Oh, don't call me a ho, that might hurt my feelings!" Give me a break.

To Mr. Imus I say this: You really need to think first, before you stick your foot in your mouth. Talk about stupid!

To the Rutgers women's \/\/hatever Team: You know, rappers have been calling you "nappy headed hos" for a lot longer than Mr. Imus has. Either start picking on the SOURCE of the problem, or get over it!

Sheesh!

Current Mood: Disgusted at what American is turning into
Current Music: Haddaway - What is Love
Carry Pistol: Para-Ordnance P14.45ACP

Global Warming is a Hoax? Wow, Imagine that!

(link)

The Tempest

By Joel Achenbach
Sunday, May 28, 2006; W08

As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback.

IT SHOULD BE GLORIOUS TO BE BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists. By rights, Bill Gray should be in deep clover, enjoying retirement, pausing only to collect the occasional lifetime achievement award.

He's a towering figure in his profession and in person. He's 6 feet 5 inches tall, handsome, with blue eyes and white hair combed straight back. He's still lanky, like the baseball player he used to be back at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington in the 1940s. When he wears a suit, a dark shirt and tinted sunglasses, you can imagine him as a casino owner or a Hollywood mogul. In a room jammed with scientists, you'd probably notice him first.

He's loud. His laugh is gale force. His personality threatens to spill into the hallway and onto the chaparral. He can be very charming.

But he's also angry. He's outraged.

He recently had a public shouting match with one of his former students. It went on for 45 minutes.

He was supposed to debate another scientist at a weather conference, but the organizer found him to be too obstreperous, and disinvited him.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax....

(To read the whole article, click here.

At least I know I'm not alone in my theory, that Global Warming is a hoax.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: None
Carry Pistol: Para Ordnance P14.45

IL Politician Caught in a lie. (So, what else is new?)

IL Politician Caught in a Lie

4/5/2007

When anti-gun Illinois Senator Dan Kotowski held a press conference to promote a gun ban the other day, I’m sure he didn't expect someone who knows a thing or two about the guns being banned to be in attendance.

So when the senator pointed to an Armalite .50-caliber rifle and called it a "military weapon," he got the shock of his life. The top guy from Armalite stood up in the audience and told the crowd that's not true. He said they'd never sold the rifle to the military.

Kotowski was shocked, and started dancing his best back-and-fill routine.

Armalite is an Illinois company, and the proposed .50-caliber ban would mean they'd have to move operations out of state. But more importantly, a ban on that rifle would lead to a ban on more firearms, and Armalite's Mark Westrom knows that.

In fact, he said at the press conference, "When the .50(-caliber) is restricted, okay, so then we modify it and we convert it into a 49(-caliber). Then what happens next here to the 49s and the 45s?"

Westrom is right. Because bans don't solve problems, they only lead to more bans, and gun owners should NEVER stand for it.

Kotowski made some ludicrous claims about the rifle, including that it could shoot down an airplane flying 6,000 feet overhead. These gun-banners make idiotic statements like this all the time, but rarely is their stupidity confronted by someone so highly credentialed.

I'm glad Mark Westrom was in the audience last week ... I just wish the Illinois media saw fit to report his truth, instead of Kotowski's lies.

(From NRANews)

Personal Note: I was in the Army. I saw first hand what a .50 caliber MACHINE GUN can do. A .50 cal Machine gun can shoot down an air liner. But it takes more than just one bullet to do so. It takes a virtual hail of bullets to bring down an airplane. The best sniper in the world can not bring down an airliner with one shot from a .50 caliber rifle.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Carry Pistol: EAA Witness 10mm Auto Pistol