Posts Tagged ‘the people’

My Response To Liberals About Gun Control (It’s Really Conservatives Who Ought To Read It, Though).

July 31, 2012

Liberals can’t understand why anyone would want an “assault weapon” (which many literally think is a fully automatic machine gun rather than the completely SEMI-automatic version of the military assault rifles which are actually of a fairly lightweight caliber).

“You don’t need one of those to hunt,” they’ll say.  As if they think rightwing Republicans are all like Jed Clampett out in the woods “shootin at some food.”

Obama says, “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”  Let’s leave aside the fact that the AK-47s that actually ARE in the hands of soldiers are capable of fully automatic fire – which documents that Obama is one of the demagogues who are deliberately trying to confuse and mislead the American people into banning guns that have ALREADY been banned so he can fool them into supporting new restrictions on their constitutional rights.  Another couple of questions arise: 1) Does Obama not know which military he commands?  Because in point of fact only COMMUNIST soldiers use AK-47s.  Have his Marxist economic policies left him confused, or is he simply that astonishingly ignorant about this issue he’s lecturing us about?  2) A further thing that leaves me scratching my head is why Obama thinks that gun laws are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals GIVEN THE FACT THAT “CRIMINALS” ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE BY DEFINITION WHO DON’T OBEY DAMN LAWS.  This takes us to the dilemma that if you criminalize guns, only criminals will end up having them.  Which is why in actual FACT liberal cities are far more violent than conservative cities.  Especially the cities like Chicago that have the most restrictive gun laws which prevent law-abiding people from protecting themselves.  And the only way to actually “ban” all of these “AK-47s” is to kick down every single damn door in America to confiscate them in what would be the most tyrannous day in the entire history of the republic (and keep reading to see below for WHY we have a right to keep and bear arms in the first place).

The reality is that the so-called “assault weapons” are excellent multi-purpose rifles, and many people who don’t have unlimited money particularly like these weapons for their multiple uses: you can use them for hunting; you can use them for home defense; you can use them to protect your rights as an American citizen against any who would seek to take those rights away; and boy are they ever fun to use for target shooting.  That’s what my dad would call a “four-fer.”  And add to all of that the fact that they are designed to be light weight.  If I weren’t a rich liberal like the ones who are trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves while they drive around in armored cars with their armed security details, and I could only afford to buy one gun, I would want an assault weapon.

I’d like to see a garden-variety liberal try to protect their property from a mob of looters during a riot with the sort of guns they say everyone should be limited to.  The term “neo-conservative” refers to “liberals who have been mugged by reality.”  If you are one of the people who have been forced to protect what you have spent your life building from those who want to take it away from you and burn what they leave behind, and when you look through the smoke there are no police around to protect you, then you are one of the people who understand that “assault weapons” have a very useful purpose, indeed.

Many of your self-considered “broadly tolerant” liberals believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the black powder smoothbore muskets that were in vogue the day the Constitution was signed.  Of course, there are plenty of liberals who would eagerly take even THOSE away from us.  The fact of the matter is that those black powder smoothbores that every American was not only allowed to have but encouraged to have when the Constitution was written were the most modern military firearms available at the time.  And the fact of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment – and think for a second why it would be the second most important thing the founding fathers believed in after they considered freedom of religion and freedom of speech – was a reaction against government tyranny.  The founding fathers wanted the government to fear the people rather than for the people to fear the government – which has as a matter of documented historical FACT been a terrible consequent of many states that have taken away the right to keep and bear arms.

Which is why James Madison said, “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Which is why James Madison also said, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Which is why Noah Webster said, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

Which is why Alexander Hamilton said, “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”

Which is why Alexander Hamilton also said, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

Which is why Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”

Which is why Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Which is why Patrick Henry also said, “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

And which is why Patrick Henry also said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Which is why Samuel Adams said, “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”

Which is why Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Which is why Thomas Jefferson also said, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

And which is why Thomas Jefferson also said, “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

Which is why George Washington said, “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.

And which is why even the wise philosopher Aristotle said, “Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.”

It’s not like this is a matter of any question to any intelligent, educated person.  The founding fathers were crystal clear that the people have the necessary right to keep and bear arms.  And literally that any government that would try to take away those arms was a tyrannous government that in fact exemplified why arms should be in the hands of the people in the first place!

In fact, liberals, the very fact that you keep trying to use raw government power to take away our guns is why we should be all the more determined to keep our guns.  Because according to the founding fathers you are the very people that we should be armed against.

Liberals love to assert that the 2nd Amendment never really applied to “the people” but rather to a “militia.”  What is funny is that the very liberals who say that guns shouldn’t be in the hands of the people are also the most suspicious and intolerant of people in militias, too!  Which underscores the fact that these liberals are truly anti-gun AND anti-Constitution and merely cynically offer whatever pretense will get them what they want.  But leaving that aside, let’s example the argument:

The 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Here’s what’s wrong with that view: To whom do the rights accorded in the 1st Amendment belong: to “the people” or to “a well regulated militia”?

If liberals want to be logically and morally and historically and grammatically consistent with their 2nd Amendment view about gun rights only belonging to militias, they must therefore concede that “the people” do not have the right to peaceably assemble or to petition the government for any redress of grievances (1st Amendment) or to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment and see also the rights guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments) – because only those in a “well regulated militia” would possess those rights and any other rights the Constitution claims for “the people.”  It is completely arbitrary and in fact downright irrational thinking to suggest that “the people” means one thing for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment but something entirely different for every other usage of the exact same phrase in the very same document.

To return to what I previously stated that liberals become the very people that our founding fathers warned us about, in trying to take away rights that clearly belong to “the people” are by so doing denying and undermining every other right that similarly belongs to “the people.”  And thank God I have guns as long as there are people who think that way.

Let me further mention a typical liberal view that guns are dangerous because “guns kill people.”

You could give me a nuclear bomb and I would do everything in my power to ensure that that nuclear bomb was used responsibly – which is to say that I would never use it in any situation I could possibly envision.  You could give me a fully automatic machine gun to carry around with me at port arms and I would never mow down a crowd. Conservatives are people who can own guns and not murder innocent people.  Liberals – by their own views – are apparently not such people.  Rather, if they had a gun, that gun, being inherently dangerous and evil, would immediately begin to leach away at their feeble liberal intellects and their gutless liberal moral wills.  Liberals affirm that they are bad people, weak people, who should not be entrusted with the responsibility that the founding fathers provided for free men.

This gets to the heart of the issue between liberals and conservatives.  It comes down to something that John Adams said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In their views of guns and their attitude toward the 2nd Amendment, liberals implicitly if not explicitly admit that they are NOT the kind of people that the Constitution was made for; they are bad people.  They are people who have no morality and no religion; and the Constitution and its protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights are therefore wholly inadequate for them.

Our Constitution was written to create “a new nation, conceived in liberty” as Lincoln would later say.  It was to be a nation different from the nations of Europe, in which all men were equal and men were free to think and believe and decide for themselves.  And Madison’s point was that only a moral and religious people could exercise the necessary self-restraint to have those kinds of freedoms.  Amoral and irreligious people, on the other hand, could be controlled only by ever-increasing levels of totalitarian government tyranny.

George Washington – the father of our country – was even MOREstridently clear. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

And the point here is that liberals again and again on issue after issue reveal themselves to be the kind of people that George Washington and the founding fathers of this country would have labelled “traitors.”  They are NOT patriots; they are men and women who “labor to subvert these great pillars” such as morality and religion and, yes, the 2nd Amendment protections provided for “the people.”

Consider one particularly infamous and evil example of the fact that Democrats routinely demonize the very “religion and morality” that George Washington and our founding fathers said was the defining foundation of our Constitution.

Liberals have worked hard for the last fifty years to take away our morality and our religion.  In so doing, they have given us the very violence that is now spiralling out of control.  Liberals are the kind of people who have taken away prayer.  Liberals are the kind of people who have refused to allow the posting of the Ten Commandments because “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” and God-as-Government forbid that children be allowed to do something like that.  Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed godless abortion upon society to the tune of 54 MILLION innocent human beings butchered since 1973.  Liberals are the kind of people who have destroyed fatherhood, because according to liberals fathers did not father children, but strictly non-human lumps of biological goop such that they should not be allowed to have any influence whatsoever as to whether their own babies be allowed to even live.  Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed pornography on us because liberal justices are moral idiots who are morally incapable of differentiating between art and XXX-rated sex movies.  Liberals are the kind of people who imposed no-fault divorce without limit or condition upon us because breaking up families is more important than asking couples who took a vow to one another under God to work to resolve their differences.  Liberals are the kind of people who turned marriage itself into a perverted mockery by saying that the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman be adulterated to include whatever the hell politically correct understanding depraves the minds of the left next.

These are the people that George Washington said, “These people are NOT patriots.”  These are the people that the founding fathers said we needed to be armed to protect ourselves against as they take away the God-given rights of “the people” to protect ourselves against the very tyranny they continually seek to impose upon us.

If any liberal wants to regulate the guns which the founding fathers intended to protect ourselves against the very sort of tyranny that liberals continually seek to impose, let them first categorically affirm the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  By that, I mean require an Amendment to the Bill of Rights that for all time specifically states that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the same people who have ever other right accorded to “the people” be allowed to be armed and to possess arms, with the further condition that ANY official whether he or she be a politician, a judge or a bureaucrat be IMMEDIATELY removed from his or her office with the forfeiture of all pay, all benefits and all responsibilities if he or she ever try to take away these rights from any law-abiding American citizen.

Until that day, “gun control” is a zero-sum game, with every limitation and restriction taking us one step closer to taking away ALL of our rights while those who believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and specifically the 2nd Amendment, receive NOTHING in return.  As long as there is one liberal who has any influence over the American people in any chamber of politics, any chamber of law, or any bureaucracy, who wants to take away our rights, the people need to continue to be armed to prevent that liberal from depriving them of their freedom.

If you as a liberal think I’m crazy to say that Democrats want to take away our guns, well, then, please join me in taking that issue I keep demagoguing off the table.  Demand that your party sponsor and vote for that constitutional amendment.  And then people like me will be forced to shut up, won’t we?

Liberals constantly demonize conservatives as the obstacles preventing every single nut from shooting somebody; I point the finger right back at them: because they are untrustworthy negotiating partners with too many having the open agenda that I described above.  As long as we have a president of the United States who appoints judges who say that citizens have a right to keep arms, but not to bear them – or to similarly brazenly deny the Constitution, you aint getting NOTHIN’ from me.  And frankly, if you don’t mind my saying so, you’re a slimebag for every trying.

When the 2nd Amendment as our founding fathers intended it is firmly engrained in American society once and for all time, I believe liberals will be surprised at how many conservatives will join them in enacting reasonable restrictions that will limit the abuse of guns.

But that day will not happen and should not happen until everybody who thinks like this is legally barred from holding ANY government office whatsoever.

And that is why this is true and has been true of Barack Obama:

I began this talking about Barack Obama not wanting AK-47s in the American peoples’ hands because he doesn’t trust us.  What is amazing is that this same president’s administration put those very AK-47s into the hands of Mexican drug cartel murderers.

Advertisements

‘Assault Weapons,’ Gun Control And The Myth Of Which Side Is To Blame For ‘Guns In The Hands Of Killers’

July 24, 2012

I am home following an argument with a liberal dumbass for whom idiot opinion trumps facts.

I heard a man state that James Holmes was using a fully automatic assault rifle to mow people down.  And, being me, I was compelled to correct his errors with facts.

“Based on the records we have reviewed, personnel in our Denver store correctly and fully followed all Federal requirements with respect to the sale of one shotgun and one handgun to the individual identified in this incident,” said a statement released by Bass Pro Shops. “Background checks, as required by Federal law, were properly conducted, and he was approved.”

Holmes purchased a third weapon, a semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle, at the Gander Mountain store in Aurora just a mile from the movie theater where he allegedly mowed down dozens of unsuspecting moviegoers.

That, too, was bought over the counter, after Holmes passed a background check.

“In 95 percent of all gun-related crimes, the guns are bought illegally, not over the counter,” said Richard Taylor, a manager at The Firing Line, a gun retailer in Aurora. “This appears to be the rare exception.”

According to Taylor, all three of the weapons are commonly sold over the counter; the shotgun, a favorite of those looking to protect their home; the AR-15, a weapon used by small game hunters and shooting enthusiasts; and the glock perhaps the most commonly-used gun by law enforcement officers on the street.

James Holmes did NOT use a fully automatic assault rifle in his July 20 murder spree; he used a civilian version of the M-16 called an AR-15 that fired in one mode: semi-automatic.

The definition of an “assault rifle” is a weapon that is capable of selective fire, with two modes: semi-automatic and full automatic.  The latest military assault rifles that have appeared have modified the “full automatic” to a shorter 3-round burst with each squeeze of the trigger.  That modification was the result of trying to save bullets, not lives, for the record.

Years back, Democrats used a sleight of hand to refer to “assault weapons” and demonize them.  These “assault weapons” are merely semi-automatic versions of the military grade weapons.  Since then, both the Democrat Party and the mainstream media have repeatedly and deliberately attempted to confuse the public into believing that “assault weapons” are dangerous fully automatic weapons that no one ought to be allowed to have.

Which is another way of pointing out that in a way, the liberal jackass who refused to be corrected with the facts wasn’t completely to blame for his being a dumb ass; the media and the Democrat Party routinely and deliberately confuse people with the intent of ginning up manufactured outrage in order to ban weapons under false pretenses.

There are still plenty of damn liberals who want to demonize Republicans over every gun crime.  Oh yes there are.  And I’m sick of it.

I’m just a guy who starts getting increasingly pissed off whenever I hear somebody selling lies in place of the facts.

The biggest lie of all that liberals and Democrats routinely tell is that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t really give the people the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment – and it’s “second” only after the right to free speech and the right to worship in a free society – is short, sweet and crystal clear:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If “the people” means “a well regulated Militia,” as liberals and Democrats routinely assert, then “the people” do not have any rights at all UNLESS THEY SERVE IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.  In other words, according to the “logic” of liberalism, you do NOT have the right to keep and bear arms; neither do you have the right to free speech, nor the right to worship as you choose, nor the right to peaceably assemble, etc. etc. ad nasuem.  You do not have any rights at all if you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms.  Because “the people” are either “the people” or they are “a well regulated militia.”  One or the other.

But let’s, just for the sake or argument, pretend for a moment that liberals and Democrats are honest people who truly want to follow the Constitution.  And they are honest for thinking of “the people” as “a well regulated militia.”  That would mean that Democrats and liberals are all for “well regulated militias,” right?

Well, the fact of the matter is that Democrats and liberals are NOT for guns.  Period.  And so they’ve gone after militias as savagely as they’ve gone after individual people being able to own guns.  You see, if you love the Constitution and you hate government regulations, well, you’re an “extremist militia” by Obama’s Homeland Security Department definition and Democrats and liberals are going to do all they can do to come after you.

So Democrats and liberals are dishonest.  They say “the people” shouldn’t have the right to be armed because only a militia should have that right.  And then they tell the militias that THEY shouldn’t have that right, either.

That’s how the Nazis  and the communists were.  They took away “the people’s” right to be armed, too.  It was the very first thing they did.  If they hadn’t, quite frankly, there would have been a lot fewer murdered Jews and a lot more dead Nazi killers.  I think the state of Israel has amply demonstrated that armed Jews are more than capable of protecting themselves when liberal policies had them as helpless sheep waiting for their turn to be slaughtered.  Just saying.

If you read the Federalist Papers there is no question whatsoever that the founding fathers viewed the 2nd Amendment as a reaction against tyranny.  In the Britain that the first Americans had escaped, it was a crime to own a weapon.  There was no way to rise up and thow off whatever shackles of tyranny that government imposed upon them.  The founding fathers said that people should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people.  And an armed government has no need to fear a disarmed people.

I think there are ALL KINDS of things that American society can do to better regulate gun ownership.

But I just as firmly believe that there should be NO regulations of ANY kind until Democrats stop being fascists and fundamentally respect the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment.  Until the Democrat Party IN ITS PLATFORM fundamentally swears to uphold the fight of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement, there can and should be no negotiations of any kind to limit guns in any way.  Because such negotiations would amount to a zero-sum game in which conservatives keep on giving up ground and rights and Democrats keep seizing ground and rights.

These are the first two “gun laws” that we need in America:

1) Any politician (ie., any Democrat) who publicly says that people do not have a right to keep and bear arms will be denied ANY and ALL money by his or her political party.  He or she will likewise be stripped of any and all leadership in the party.

2) Any judge – whether elected or appointed – who affirms that the people do not have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms will be immediately removed from his or her position on the grounds that they violated the Constitution which they took an oath to uphold.

We get those two “gun laws” passed, and I am very open to requiring more responsibility and more regulation of gun ownership.  But until then, we shouldn’t give those fascist Democrats who want to take away our guns so that we are as helpless as the Jews were before the Nazis one damn thing.

I will not allow my rights to be taken away or limited in any way, shape or form by any political body that has so much as ONE politician who is allowed to think, “That’s step ONE toward my goal to take away their guns.”  I will not agree with Democrats regarding ANY limitation of my fundamental right to keep and bear arms when it is a matter of public record that many Democrats do not respect the Constitution they took an oath to uphold.

If you want to come here and assert that Republicans are creating a climate of violence by refusing to limit guns, you’ve come to the wrong place.  Because YOU are the reason why we can’t have more gun control.  Because it is your unconstitutional and frankly treasonous determination to take away the people’s right to keep and bear arms that is the REAL reason we can’t come to an accord on smarter gun regulation.

As we speak, the Obama regime is attempting to take our guns away with the power of the United Nations.  Until you Democrats get this demonic turd out of the White House, don’t you DARE try to touch my right to my guns.  And don’t you DARE try to demonize me for fighting to protect the very Bill of Rights and Constitution that YOU are trying to take away.  Because I’m the one who will demonize YOU.

I’ll leave you with two facts.

Fact one: Crime rates in liberal cities shockingly higher than in conservative cities

Fact two: Gun Control Makes Cities Dangerous Places to Live

Update: here’s another interesting fact: gun sales are skyrocketing after the Aurora massacre (see also here).  And many people are buying “assualt weapons” before any possible ban or regulation limits them.  And this isn’t the first time people have bought assault weapons out of fear of the left.  So people are literally buying guns out of fear of liberals while liberals blame conservatives for all the damn guns.

Obama Keeps Governing By Crisis; Used ‘Fast And Furious’ As Ploy To Take Away Our Right To Keep And Bear Arms

December 8, 2011

First of all, it is simply a fact that Barack Obama has been seeking to take away our constitutionally-guaranteed right to guns.

I pointed out in April of 2009 that Obama was using a crisis that we now know that HE CREATED to abolish guns.  What did I say back then???

So the obvious question is, why is the American media, and why are Democratic politicians, blaming America and blaming American guns for the problems in Mexico?

And the answer is as obvious as it is disturbing: because they despise the American Constitution, and in particular they despise the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, is just one among many Democrats citing the situation in Mexico to impose gun controls in the United States. Fortunately, a small cadre of Democrats have joined Republicans in their opposition to using the lies over the deteriorating situation in Mexico to impose anti-Constitutional laws on American citizens.

We need to point the finger at Obama, at his attorney general, at his secretary of state, and at every other politician who is demagoguing and lying to take away our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms.

We have recently had a series of terrible mass murders involving guns, and many liberals will invariably cite these as proofs that we should take away gun rights from Americans. I know three things: 1) that the founding fathers guaranteed the right of citizens to keep guns as a deterrent against tyranny, and that – given the unprecedented power-grabbing of this government – this right is more crucial than ever; 2) that taking away guns from law-abiding citizens will merely ensure that only criminals have them to terrorize the innocent; and 3) that the unarmed victims of the shooting rampages wished they had weapons when the psychopaths came in shooting. Wishing that the psychopaths didn’t have guns is as much wishful thinking as wishing that there weren’t any psychopaths to begin with. In times of danger and uncertainty, Americans don’t need wishful thinking; they need the means to defend themselves and their homes and families.

Please also see my article here.

This was an Obama-regime manufactured crisis, we now know.  Barack Obama, Erick Holder and Hillary Clinton – among numerous other Democrats and members of the Obama administration – demonized gun dealers for selling guns that ended up going to Mexico.  But what we now know for a documented FACT is that the same people who were demonizing those gun dealers were in point of fact the ones who were making them do the very thing they subsequently demonized them for doing.

New e-mails: ATF officials discussed using Fast & Furious to … push gun control
posted at 4:15 pm on December 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

The logical extension of Rahm’s famous remark about never letting a serious crisis go to waste. If a grave problem is an opportunity to push your agenda, imagine how much farther you can push it by making the problem graver.

Another F&F bombshell from CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson:

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

Follow the link and read the e-mails from a participating gun dealer to the ATF asking for a letter affirming that he was only selling these weapons at the agency’s behest. He was worried that the sales were shady and wanted legal cover in case the bureau later turned around and decided that the dealers were “irresponsible” or whatever in making the sales — which was awfully prescient given the ATF’s subsequent political opportunism. But then, none of this is surprising: Congressional Democrats and even Eric Holder himself have already used F&F as a pretext to call for more gun control. I thought the sleaziest bit of White House scandal spin we’d see this year was the Energy Department asking Solyndra to hold off on layoffs until after election day in 2010. Nope: Per the new F&F e-mails, they’re actually using their own scandals now as a pretext for greater regulation. Says Dan McLaughlin, “Obama Administration once again lives down to every paranoid caricature of itself.”

Darrell Issa said today he’s going to press Holder at tomorrow’s hearing to “clean house” at the DOJ. Chuck Grassley, for one, knows just where to start.

What does the 2nd Amendment say?

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Democrats – who frankly don’t give one flying damn about the Constitution – have fixated on the word “militia” and ignored the words “the people.”   They claim that only a “militia” can keep and bear arms.

But since the 2nd Amendment also clearly includes the words “the right of the people,” it seem obvious to me that we should take away other rights given to “the people” and only apply those rights to a militia, such as the right to peacebly assemble (we’ve already seen what damage liberals do when given such rights at the Occupy Movement disasters anyway, right?) or to petition the government for the redress of greivances (1st Amendment).  Or to have the right not to have their persons, papers and effects unreasonably searched (4th Amendment).  And of course I could go on.  Only militia members should get such rights.  Only THEY count as “the people” according to Democrats’ understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

Basically, Democrats should have all of their rights and freedoms denied to them, because if only a militia has the right to keep and bear arms, then only a damn militia has the right to do anything ELSE “the people” have a right to.

We could have a “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs and Burn Them Alive Act,” and then allow our rightwing militias to exercise that duty.  Because only such militias count as “the people” by the Democrats’ own dumbass reasoning, and it’s way past time we were finally consisitent, isn’t it???

Meanwhile this same son of a bitch who is trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights is trying to take away our 1st Amendment rights even as he demands rights for militant homosexuals.

I am beyond sick of Obama and his “govern by crisis” fascism.

Jonah Goldberg nailed it in his Liberal Fascism, which was published before Obama took power and which describes his style of governance to a ‘T’:

“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisisCrisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation.  Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.” — page 42

I am beyond sick of Obama creating one crisis after another as one after another of his policies totally fails, and then demanding that because of all the failures he’s created we should do even MORE to destroy our country.

This is and will continue to be God damn America until this weasel and everyone who thinks like him is out of our government for good.

Mubarak Not Only Dictator Who Wants To Control Internet (Btw, Our Dictator’s Name Is Barack Too)

January 29, 2011

Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak is a dictator – that’s right, Vice President Biden, I said “dictator” – who just exercised his dictatorial control by shutting down the internet in Egypt.  From The Wall Street Journal:

In the face of mounting political unrest, Egypt took the unprecedented step of severing all Internet connections and shutting down its cellphone services—with the cooperation of international firms.

Egyptian authorities asked mobile operators to “turn down the network totally,” said Vittorio Colao, chief executive of U.K.-based Vodafone Group PLC, which owns 55% of Egypt’s largest carrier, Vodafone Egypt.

ESHUTDOWN

Mr. Colao, speaking Friday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said the request was legitimate under Egyptian law, but he hoped the government would reverse course soon. […]

Other countries attempting to undermine or contain political uprisings in recent years—from Myanmar in 2007 to Iran and China in 2009—have also clamped down on Internet access and cellphone use.

But Egypt’s crackdown appears unique in both scale and synchronization, particularly for a country with such an advanced infrastructure with so many providers, according to Internet security experts.

“What’s shocking about this is that they didn’t just take down a certain domain name or block a website—they took the whole Internet down,” said Mr. Cowie.

Yes, Hosni Mubarak and the thugs in Myanmar are DICTATORS.  And dictators love to control and suppress information.

But don’t forget our dictator, whose name also happens to be Barack.  He wants to be a dictator, too:

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet
Published August 28, 2009
FOXNews.com

A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a “kill switch” to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks — a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

“In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a ‘cyber-emergency,’ which they didn’t define,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

“We think it’s a very bad idea … to put in legislation,” he told FOXNews.com.

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

“The current language is so unclear that we can’t be confident that the changes have actually been made,” he said.

The new legislation allows the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online — a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president “amorphous powers” over private users.

But, hey, it gets even worse in the new and improved version being taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate this year: now Obama can shut down the internet any vaguely-worded time Obama thinks its necessary without judges having any say-so in the matter:

According to a report Monday at CNET News, the bill will be back on the Senate agenda in the new year. But a revision introduced into the bill in December would exempt the law from judicial oversight. According to critics, this change would open the law to politically-motivated abuse by any administration, no matter how narrowly the law is interpreted.

“The country we’re seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court,” Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which represents online companies such as eBay and Yahoo, told CNET. “Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure.”

“Judicial review is our main concern,” he added. “A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance.”

Under the proposed law, the Department of Homeland Security would draw up a list of Internet “critical infrastructure” it deems vital to the proper functioning of the web and US economy. The president would then be granted the power to order some part of that critical infrastructure to be shut down, in case of a “national cyberemergency.”

While the bill does lay down what constitutes “critical infrastructure,” critics say it’s not clear what constitutes a “national cyberemergency.” Nor is it clear what other powers the president may exert, aside from shutting down parts of the web.

Many people have the unfortunate tendency to fail to see just how quintessentially fascist this president, his party and the cozy liberal media-industrial news complex which undergird that political party truly are.  It wasn’t all that long ago that Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer compared conservative political speech to porn that should be regulated.  Democrats have been calling for some version of a “Fairness Doctrine” regulating and controlling (and even subsidizing leftwing journalists) political speech for years and years.  And the Tucson, Arizona shooting in which Democrats and the mainstream media immediately combined to demonize conservative speech – notwithstanding that conservatives had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting – simply reinforces the mortal danger that free speech is in from the left these days.

All of the above are as fascist as they think they can get away with.  And they keep pushing the envelope toward more fascist big government totalitarianism.

Liberals and progressives want power.  And then they want more power.  And then they want more.  And more.

Frankly, they want to amass enough power so that, as Barack Obama himself put it:

We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…

They want to control people’s lives so that they can be the sole determiners of who wins and who loses.  They want to amass enough power so that they are invulnerable to the will of the people.

As Democrat John Dingell put it:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Obama wants dictatorial power so that he can become a better dictator.  And the only thing that is stopping him is a Constitution that Democrats constantly undermine and a finicky entity called “the people.”  Democrats have already reinterpreted the Constitution into meaninglessness, and the will of the people?

It’s not going so well for him now, but we’re only one election away from tyranny.

We’re sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed.  Please hang up and try your vote again.