Sweet mother of pearl, I think I’m still laughing at this column. Excerpt:
Joe is from Delaware, a place that’s famous for absolutely nothing and arouses no feelings whatsoever. Joe likes to ride the choo-choo trains. He talks a lot, which can be good in politics. He often talks before thinking about the words coming out of his mouth, which can not be good in politics. (Scroll down for humorous video that illustrates this.)
Obama keeps the harmless guy around because, in comparison, Biden makes the president look smooth and smart. As long as no one gets to thinking, “God Almighty, that garrulous goof is one heartbeat away from becoming commander-in-chief.”
Hey, guys, what does this red button do?
Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing. You’ll chortle throughout. And if you’re a liberal, you’ll be ashamed at this buffoon…totally kidding, as liberals are ashamed of nothing when it comes to their party. Hell, Biden could take a shotgun to a busload of schoolkids and the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) would say that those little snot-nosed b#stards had it coming to them.
MSM: If only Congress hadn’t authorized civilians to carry guns into national parks, that crazed gunman that shot four people at a party wouldn’t have killed a park ranger
I’ll never understand the logic, or lack thereof, of liberals when it comes to gun control. Let’s set the background:
Mount Rainier National Park remained closed Tuesday following the discovery of the body of the suspected gunman in the fatal shooting of a park ranger that has devastated the close-knit group of park workers.
The park, which sees more than 1.5 million visitors annually, has been off-limits since Margaret Anderson was killed Sunday morning. The body of the man suspected of killing her was found Monday morning by a plane searching the rugged, snowy area.
“We have been through a horrific experience,” said park superintendent Randy King. “We’re going to need a little time to regroup.”
Benjamin Colton Barnes, 24, was lying partially submerged in a frigid mountain creek with snow banks standing several feet high on each side.
Authorities think Barnes fled to the park Sunday to hide after an early morning shooting at a New Year’s house party near Seattle that wounded four, two critically.
King County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Sgt. Cindi West said Barnes is a suspect in that shooting, as well. West said the shots were fired around 3 a.m. after a dispute over a gun. However, further details, including the vicitms’ identities, were not immediately available.
Parks spokesman Kevin Bacher said: “The speculation is that he may have come up here, specifically for that reason, to get away. The speculation is he threw some stuff in the car and headed up here to hide out.”
So a crazed gunman (Barnes) shoots four people at a New Years Eve party, then flees to Mt. Rainier National Park and kills a park ranger who was part of a roadblock. How does the MSM treat this? Predictably:
The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.
Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.
“The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now,” Wade said.
So let me get this straight:
A mentally disturbed man who didn’t care about gun laws (or any laws) shoots four people at a party, critically wounding two of them. This same lawbreaker retreats to the wilderness to hide out, and when he is stopped by a park ranger, he ignored the law again (you know, the law about killing people and stuff?) and shot and killed the park ranger. But had Congress not authorized law-abiding citizens to carry firearms into national parks to defend themselves against bears and mountain lions, this otherwise lawbreaking gunman would have…um…not taken his gun to the national park on account of it being illegal to do so? Because he would have gotten in big trouble for breaking a gun law, as opposed to commiting homicide? And that fear would have made a mentally ill gunman reconsider his actions?
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Wow…who would have thought that the leftist rag would demand the resignation/firing of the Attorney General of the United States? I guess the offense was just that horrible! Excerpt:
It (the administration) has offered up implausible excuses, hidden the most damaging evidence and feigned memory lapses, while hoping that the public’s attention moves on. But this scandal is too important for the public or Congress to move on. This story should not end until Attorney General [redacted – CL] is gone, and the serious damage that has been done to the Justice Department is repaired.
Kudos to the NYT for demanding that the integrity of the office of the AG and the Department of Justice be preserved! I guess Operation Fast & Furious, a botched federal government operation which resulted in our government arming Mexican drug lords who, in turn, killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry PLUS 300+ Mexicans, was just so egregious that even the liberal apologists at the Old Gray Hag couldn’t defend USAG Eric Holder over it.
Hmm? What’s that? The NYT column isn’t talking about Holder or Fast & Furious?
Oh, wait. That’s right! My bad. The column was demanding the head of Bush’s AG Alberto Gonzales on a silver platter for the far more disgusting crime of…firing U.S. Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the administration.
No, as it turns out, the NYT is allowing Holder and the administration to get their talking points out about Fast & Furious. Naturally and predictably, Holder whips out the race card, and the NYT is more than happy to accommodate Holder.
But Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games, portraying them as frequently “conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was” to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light.
Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”
From Big Journalism:
Conflating things? How do we “conflate things” when we provide the documents PROVING our points? Plus if we are leaving out things it’s because Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice aren’t providing us with all the details.
How about members of the Congressional Black Caucus Mr. Holder and Mr. Savage? As Mr. Boyle and Michelle Fields report the feeling in the caucus is that the congressional investigation is warranted. So do they feel this way because Mr. Holder is an African American? Are they racists against their own race?
To recap: Republican A.G. fires US Attorneys (within his job duty), and the NYT demands he lose his job. But Democrat A.G. arms a Mexican drug cartel and gets over 300 people killed, including federal border patrol agent Brian Terry (whose name the NYT can’t bother themselves to mention), and the NYT yawns disinterestedly and allows unfounded accusations of racism and sensationalism to go unchecked. Because proof is racist, or something.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Remember last month when Eric Holder said that the botched Operation Fast & Furious, which resulted in the deaths of people including a border patrol agent (of which Holder is not remorseful), was proof that we needed more gun control laws in the U.S.? As if more gun control laws would have stopped our own government from arming Mexican drug cartels, right? Anywho, new e-mails are surfacing that showed ATF officials were indeed using the power of their office, coupled with the fiasco that was OF&F, to push more gun control legislation. Details:
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.”
There’s much more at the link. Here’s guessing that House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa is going to grill the hopelessly corrupt Eric Holder on this at today’s hearing.
Holder: We need to tighten gun control laws so we at the federal government don’t give any more guns to murderous Mexican drug cartels
What a #*&@% moron! This guy must possess another chromosome or two, because this is just idiotic on so many levels. Details:
In his testimony, Holder also advocates for new gun-control laws that he says would have halted, or at least prevented, Operation Fast and Furious. Holder echoes California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s comments from last week, when she argued that stricter gun laws would have stopped law enforcement agents from facilitating the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels.
Just to make sure I understand this properly…
The feds force reluctant gun dealers to sell guns to Mexican drug lords, who then turn around and use those guns (unexpectedly, of course) to commit crimes, especially murder. When the resulting (and predictable) operation blows up, Holder and his minions scramble into CYA mode to deal with the humilation and possible criminal charges.
Their response? We need stricter gun control laws. Of course. I mean, stricter gun control laws that applied only to American citizens would have prevented the federal government from this insanely stupid government operation (forcing gun dealers to sell arms to Mexican drug lords), right? Hmmm? They won’t?
You know, if I were cynical, I would think that the feds are using this debacle as a cover for implementing more gun control laws against the populace. If I were cynical, that is.
CNN host: That felon who shouldn’t have had a gun in the FL school board shooting would have been stopped if we had stronger gun control laws
Let that bit of idiocy sink in as you watch the video clip with former
john governor Eliot Spitzer advocating stronger gun control laws.
Aaron Worthing makes the logical conclusion that is lost (perhaps willfully so) on the left:
The fact is this guy was not supposed to have a gun in the first place. He was a convicted felon. The synopsis of that previous crime was this:
In October 1999, Duke threatened to kill a Florida woman, and when she attempted to flee, he used a handgun to “shoot out the victim’s rear tire of the vehicle that she was operating.”
Duke, wearing a bulletproof vest, told the woman he had “been watching her for the past six months and was planning to kill her, several other people, then himself,” according to probation officers.
And like in most states, Florida tells felons they may not possess firearms. But still, he had one. Because that is what criminals do: they don’t obey the law. Indeed, the notion that a man would decide to commit a murder-suicide would then be deterred by a law telling him he isn’t supposed to own a gun is self-evidently silly.
Only a liberal would conclude that a man intent on breaking the law when it comes to shooting people would somehow be dissuaded from obtaining a gun if only it were illegal…which it already is…so I guess it should be “more illegal“?
Further proof that you can club a liberal upside the head with facts and it wouldn’t even leave a mark. Quote:
On Monday, Chicago Mayor Daley blamed the Ft. Hood Jihad Massacre on America’s love of guns!
“Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group.”
I’m confused. He just said that “you don’t blame a group”…right before he blamed a group. You can’t blame Islamofascists for acts of terrorism, but you can blame Americans who exercise their Second Amendment rights? WTH?
Notes Andrew Marcus:
Taking Mayor Daley at face value for a moment, is he seriously arguing for increased gun control on a military base? If there had been more guns around, this ticking Jihad bomb could have been put down a lot faster than he was.
Liberals: Exiled from reality and living in ivory towers.
Woman gets attacked by rapist. Same rapist sleazeball returns days later for an encore. Said rapist winds up taking the eternal celestial dirt nap. Details from Mizzou:
An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.
The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.
The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier. Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.
In the first incident, the woman heard glass breaking in her basement about midnight on Saturday. She went to leave the house, and the man attacked when she opened the front door. He punched her in the face and then forced her into a bedroom, where he raped her, said H. Morley Swingle, prosecuting attorney in Cape Girardeau County.
The victim reported the crime to police, and her landlord repaired the broken window.
She was home alone again Friday about 2:15 a.m. when Preyer broke the same basement window. The victim was awake watching television, when Preyer switched off the electricity to her house.
She tried to call 911, but couldn’t because the power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door. When Preyer collapsed, the woman escaped and went to a neighbor’s home, where she called police. Officers, who arrived within a minute, found a bleeding Preyer stumbling away from the house. He was taken to St. Francis Medical Center, where he died several hours later.
Swingle said the victim identified Preyer as the attacker in both incidents. Preyer, of Jackson, Mo., had wet caulking from the recently repaired basement window on his clothing when he was shot.
“I will not be filing any sort of charge against this 57-year-old woman, who was clearly justified under the law in shooting this intruder in her home,” Swingle said.
Try telling this lady that “having a gun won’t make you any safer”, m’kay?
Exit question (albeit somewhat rhetorical): Did you know that if Ted Kennedrunk had it his way, she would have been raped again (and possibly killed)?
From Stop the ACLU:
Further proof of this came this week in the Pittsburgh City Council during the debate on an unconstitutional gun bill the city was trying to institute. After the lopsided vote was over — with the anti-constitution side winning — Councilwoman Tonya Payne told everyone that would listen that she didn’t care about the U.S. Constitution.
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional? This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine.”
That, my friends, is the perfect illustration of how your average liberal sees the Constitution. Keep this in mind anytime you hear some leftist act indignant about a Republican politician “shredding the Constitution”, because apparently, “shredding the Constitution” is fine so long as it’s a liberal that is manning the shredder.
I’ve always been a fan of FactCheck.org as an unbiased site that tries to set the record straight whenever politicians make dishonest claims. Heck, I even referenced them recently.
Well, no more. Patterico shows that FactCheck is about as useless as the U.N. in the face of genocide. Please read the whole thing, of which excerpts follow:
The summary version: FactCheck ridicules the NRA in this piece. But the NRA is careful to say: look at Obama’s record and not his rhetoric. And at least two of the NRA claims are backed up by references to Obama’s record. Yet FactCheck.org goes on to minimize or completely ignore Obama’s record on these points, choosing instead to concentrate on citations to Obama’s later campaign rhetoric.
1) FactCheck.org declares “false” the NRA’s claim that Obama plans to ban the possession, manufacture, and sale of handguns. But it emerges that this claim is directly based on Obama’s “yes” answer to a the following question in a questionnaire: “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”
FactCheck.org simply faults the NRA for not noting Obama’s later attempts to explain away this answer. But FactCheck.org doesn’t address the fact that Obama falsely denied even seeing the questionnaire, only to have it later emerge that an amended version had his handwriting on it. …
In short, FactCheck says that the NRA ad against Obama is wrong. How is it wrong? Because while the NRA uses such trivial measuring sticks such as Obama’s own voting record, FactCheck prefers to use…I can’t believe I’m typing this…Obama’s campaign rhetoric as “facts” against which to check the NRA ad! Yep…apparently, words trump record in the world of “facts”!
I’m not saying that FactCheck is biased. I’m just saying they’re misleading, be it intentional or otherwise.
Those idiots in our nation’s capital (not Congress, but the D.C. Council and Mayor) are doing their best to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. DC must be spoiling for a fight, since Dick Heller (the winner in the SCOTUS case) applied for his handgun permit in DC after the ruling, and DC denied his application.
DC decided to comply with the SCOTUS ruling by…implementing measures that essentially ignore the ruling. They knew this lawsuit was coming, which means that they are perfectly willing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars in legal fees fighting a battle that they know damned well they aren’t going to win.
Maybe D.C. Councilman and former mayor Marion Barry has sold some of his crack to his colleagues. How else can one explain such lunacy?
Not surprisingly, the MSM is going crazier than a Reynolds Wrap vendor at a Kos convention over the Supreme Court’s upholding the Second Amendment last week. The Chicago fishwrap penned an editorial calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, which they acknowledge will never happen. Details here.
But here is probably the line that annoyed me the most from that editorial:
The damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.
The left just doesn’t get it, do they? It doesn’t amount to a fart in a whirlwind what the residents of a city or state want if the end result is a trampling on the Constitution! This is a nation of laws, and the supreme law of our land is the United States Constitution. We are not a democracy, but we are a constitutional republic. That may suck for the Chicago fishwrap newsroom, but it’s good news for normal America.
Barry O last year, while courting the moonbats needed for the Dem nomination:
“. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”
The Obamaliar today, right before the predictable outcome of the Supreme Court – DC gun ban – Second Amendment case:
With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.
“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.
If, by “consistent”, you mean “Changing my mind, or at least my rhetoric, within an seven-month window”, then yeah…”consistent”!
Notes Ed Morrissey:
Suddenly, with the general election looming, Obama discovers that his campaign’s statement was inartful. This seems rather puzzling, because before he ran for public office, Barack Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional law expert. One might expect the “inartful” excuse on wetlands reclamation or some other esoteric matter of public policy, but the Constitution is what he supposedly studied at Columbia and Harvard. One has to wonder whether Obama has any competence even in his own chosen field to have seven months go by before realizing that he got the Constitutional question wrong.
Wait, wait, lemme guess: “This is not the Constitution I knew”, right?
Finally, a victory for common sense…which would explain the four liberal justices’ dissent. From FNC:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “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.”
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
What Stevens conveniently ignores is that the D.C. gun ban didn’t regulate firearms…it prohibited them. It was a clear violation of the Second Amendment, and kudos to the Court for finally putting the debate to rest once and for all: the Second Amendment is an individual right, just as are the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.
NYC sues a gun store owner, and its attorneys ask the Court not to let the defendant reference the Second Amendment in his defense. In such a jackbooted thuggish request, the city is essentially asking the Court to step on the defendant’s First Amendment right to say what he needs to say in his own defense! Hey, who needs the Constitution in this court, right? From the NY Sun:
Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg are asking a judge to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during the upcoming trial of a gun shop owner who was sued by the city. While trials are often tightly choreographed, with lawyers routinely instructed to not tell certain facts to a jury, a gag order on a section of the Constitution would be an oddity.
“Apparently Mayor Bloomberg has a problem with both the First and the Second amendments,” Lawrence Keane, the general counsel of a firearms industry association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said.
The trial, set to begin May 27, involves a Georgia gun shop, Adventure Outdoors, which the city alleges is responsible for a disproportionate number of the firearms recovered from criminals in New York City. The gun store’s owner, Jay Wallace, says his store abides by Georgia and federal regulations and takes steps to avoid selling firearms to gun traffickers. Mr. Wallace’s store is one of 27 out-of-state gun shops sued by New York City, and the first to go to trial.
City lawyers, in a motion filed Tuesday, asked the judge, Jack Weinstein of U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, to preclude the store’s lawyers from arguing that the suit infringed on any Second Amendment rights belonging to the gun store or its customers. In the motion, the lawyer for the city, Eric Proshansky, is also seeking a ban on “any references” to the amendment.
“Any references by counsel to the Second Amendment or analogous state constitutional provisions are likewise irrelevant,” the brief states. …
Bloomberg sucks. Sorry, but that’s about as deep of an analysis I have of him as I can muster.
The Always Biased Company blames the arming of Mexico’s drug gangs on our constitutional right to self-defense. Nope…no liberal media bias!
It’s an open-and-shut case: Obama is a filthy stinking liar and will say anything and everything to get elected, trying desperately to hide his true Marxist colors in the process. From Capt. Ed:
Lately, the political world has buzzed about Barack Obama’s tenure with the Woods Foundation, where he worked with domestic terrorist William Ayers and which issued a $75,000 grant to Yasser Arafat toady Rashid Khalidi. However, Politico has found another paid foundation gig which may raise even more questions about Obama’s positions and honesty. While working as a director at the Joyce Foundation, the organization funneled almost $3 million in grants to political groups opposing gun rights:
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.
But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.
The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”
Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.
Read that part again: “Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation…do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners“! Right. I mean, just because the guy directs a foundation whose goal is to ban handguns and who argues (irrationally, I might add) that the Second Amendment is the only amendment that doesn’t protect individual rights, that doesn’t mean that he wants to ban all handguns or argues (irrationally, I might add) that the Second Amendment is the only amendment that doesn’t protect individual rights! It’s only the peons who work for him that truly believe that, right? Un-friggin’-believable.
Seven of the grants were awarded when Obama served on the board. Where did the money go?
- $2.5 million went to the Violence Policy Center, which has campaigned for a national ban on all handguns.
- $20,000 paid to publish Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns
- $10,000 went to another gun-banning group, Handgun-Free America
Does anyone else see a pattern? If Obama doesn’t want to ban handguns, he certainly chose the wrong foundation to help run. Once again, his track record speaks in opposition to his blandishments towards the benighted and embittered gun owners that he wants to rescue through bigger federal government.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will end this argument once and for all. Until then, if the McCain camp has a single hair on their shriveled nutsacks, they’d take this baby and run with it, especially in “bitter rural” areas in PA, MO, IA, NH, and OH.
Stepping up the Clinton Administration’s campaign against gun violence, Hillary Rodham Clinton used an emotional White House ceremony today to call on Americans to press Congress to ”buck the gun lobby” and pass several gun control measures.
She described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said that her faith “is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.”
Exit question: Was this the same father that allegedly named her after Sir Edmund Hillary, whom no one had heard of until she was six years old? Just sayin’.
Police: “Hey, can we come in and take your guns and drugs? We won’t arrest you. Scout’s honor!” I’m sure that’s about as effective as a fart in a tornado. Considering that the district is about to have their gun ban overturned by the Supreme Court, it seems clear that DC is hoping to clear out as many soon-to-be-lawful guns as possible, out of blind fear that the residents may actually exercise their Second Amendment rights. Anywho, from DC:
D.C. police are going door-to-door Monday in one of the city’s crime-plagued neighborhoods, asking residents for permission to search their homes for guns and other illegal contraband.
The program, called the Safe Homes Initiative, will offer homeowners and renters limited amnesty for possessing any contraband found by police.
The program is aimed at removing guns and drugs kept by children and young adults in their parents’ homes. The homeowners will be asked to sign a form, consenting to the search…
Ward 8 Councilman Marion Barry supports the initiative’s aims, but has some problems with it.
“I don’t understand it. In fact we will fight against it until we find out what will be the end point,” says Barry. “That’s a parental responsibility. Not the government’s responsibility to know what kids are doing, when they come home, who their friends are and what they have in the house.”
It’s a sad state of affairs when you have a convicted crackhead making the most sense in this situation.
Oh, the horror! The headline says it all. From Say Anything:
Do Some Constitutional Amendments Have More Rights Than Others?
Apparently it is so according to this headline from the LA Times:
In order to believe that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, you would have to believe that every single one of the other Bill of Rights amendments are all individual rights (or are limits on the federal government’s power) except for the second one from the top. That, my friends, is highly illogical…which is why the LAT subscribes to that belief.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
… The American affinity for guns may puzzle foreigners who link high ownership rates and liberal gun ownership laws to the 84 gun deaths and 34 gun homicides that occur in the United States each day and wonder why gun control is not an issue in the U.S. presidential election.
The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors.
Whoa! You mean it’s not just bad guys that own guns? Who knew?
From Neal Boortz:
I was sorting out some papers over the weekend … and came upon one of my favorites. It’s a page out of an “Activity Book” published by Harcourt Brace, now called Harcourt Education. This page is entitled “Rights & Wrongs” and comes from the Harcourt social studies textbook “United States in Modern Times.” The heading for this page says “In the late eighteenth century many people complained that the Constitution did not list rights of the people. So the authors of the Constitution decided to write a Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments to the Constitution state simply and clearly citizens’ rights that the government cannot take away.”
This particular page (page 14) of the “Activity Book” then lists the Bill of Rights with short explanations of each one. I thought you might like to see what this book says about the 2nd Amendment:
“The Second Amendment * says that states may enlist citizens for a trained militia [army] and provide and train them with weapons.”
Are you believing that? This, my friends, is the way the government schools work to indoctrinate rather than educate. In the heading Harcourt says that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people … then they go on to say that the 2nd Amendment actually protects the rights of government.
Are you sending your children to the government to be educated?
Only a boob would believe that every single amendment in the Bill of Rights pertains to individual rights and the rights of the people (not the “rights” of government) except for the Second one.
Remember the story out of Dallas back in October about the reporter who hounded a 70-year-old Army vet who blasted a home intruder? If not, here’s your refresher. She was suspended shortly after the incident.
Good news: the wench has been fired, and deservedly so. From Uncle Barky:
Rebecca Aguilar’s 14-year career as a Fox4 reporter has officially ended via a letter from an attorney representing the station.In a telephone interview Wednesday night, Aguilar, 49, said she was checking her mail at mid-afternoon that day when she noticed an envelope under her front door mat. It informed her that Fox4 was exercising an option to drop her at the halfway point of a two-year contract that began on March 6, 2007.
“No doorbell, no knock on the door,” said Aguilar, who had been on paid suspension since Oct. 16th following her controversial interview with an elderly West Dallas salvage business owner who had shot and killed two alleged burglars within three weeks time.The interview had been hotly debated in both Dallas and around the country. Some accused Aguilar of “ambushing” a feeble old man; others said she had been aggressive, but not unduly so, in getting a story that rival stations also wanted on their newscasts.
The suspension came less than two weeks after Aguilar had accepted the Broadcast Journalist of the Year award from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Three other Fox4 staffers connected with the story belatedly received suspensions lasting less than a week combined.
“I just think it’s really sad that I gave this company 14 years and I did about 6,000 interviews,” Aguilar said. “And now I’m out of a job because of one interview? It’s like in one swoop it ruined my reputation. It ruined my name.”
No, dumb#ss, you ruined your name! Continuing:
… Aguilar said that most street reporters are expected to “go out there and ask the hard questions. As journalists, shouldn’t we able to do the same thing on the inside? We shouldn’t live in fear. Because once you put fear into a reporter, how can you expect that person to pursue the truth, pursue the facts? We cannot as reporters be Jekyll and Hyde, one person on the inside, another person on the outside. Those plantation days are over.”
“Plantation days”? Care to elaborate, Señora? Besides, there’s a difference in “agressive reporting” and what you said to a traumatized old man: “Are you a trigger happy kind of person? Is that what you wanted to do, shoot to kill?”
Aguilar, whose husband still works at Fox4, contends that the station may have “ruined my career.”
Again: no, dumb#ss, you ruined it! Take some responsibility for your own putrid actions, you jackass!
Harsh conclusion? You tell me:
Jeanne Assam, the heroine of the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, would likely have been unable to carry the Beretta that she stopped the shooting with if she had been a licensed security guard.
An AP article published on 12 December noted that licensed security guards in Colorado Springs are restricted to the use of revolvers.
As Jeanne Assam was a volunteer parishioner who was performing security guard duties because the church did not want to hire “mercenaries”, she was almost certainly not affected by the regulations, which only apply to government regulated security guards.
Fortunately, her lack of official status with the state and city allowed her to carry a firearm with sufficient firepower to accomplish the necessary task.
Jeannette had to fire 10 rounds to keep her fellow parishoners safe.
Got that? Security guards in Colorado, per state law, (a) must be regulated by the state; and (b) cannot carry handguns like Jeanne Assam was carrying that fateful day. However, by the grace of God, Jeanne was acting as a volunteer and private citizen that day, and as such, was able to neutralize any further threat from the gunman. Had she been a government-approved security guard, more people would have died in that shooting.
Scenario: Nutbar walks into church and starts shooting people. Armed citizen shoots said nutbar, wounding him to the point where can no longer inflict carnage on the innocent who are present. Realizing this, and fearing incarceration for the remainder of his days, the nutjob kills himself. Inescapable conclusion: the armed citizen prevented the murder of scores of innocent people by incapacitating the psychopath.
But as Newsbusters reports, this MSM meat stick has her anti-gun views and is fully prepared to ignore reality in order to keep her mental apple cart upright:
Don’t confuse Mika Brzezinski with the facts. She’s anti-gun and is not about to let some stunning counter-evidence change her mind.
If ever there was an illustration of how an armed citizen can make a difference, it is the case of Jeanne Assam, the brave woman who took out the killer at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. And yet . . .
On today’s Morning Joe, Mika — in newsreader mode — dutifully reported the incident. But when Joe Scarborough sought to draw the logical inference, Mika put her anti-gun foot down.
View video here.
Let’s see: the people who were actually there during the church shooting say that Jeanne Assam saved 50 – 100 lives by shooting the killer; but what do they know? It’s not like they were actually present during the shooting, right?
What? Oh, yeah…they were there, and Mika was not! Hmmm…I think I’ll take the word of the survivors over some reflexive anti-gun emotional wench who is impervious to glaringly obvious facts, if it’s all the same to you guys.
An armed security guard blasted the psycho shooter at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Sorry, lefties, but she’s a hero (or, if you prefer, a heroine). Details:
The woman who shot a gunman inside New Life Church says her hands were not even shaking when it happened.
Jeanne Assam was working security at New Life on Sunday when 24-year-old Matthew Murray began shooting in the parking lot. Three people, including Murray, died during the attack at the 10,000-plus member New Life Church.
Police said Monday afternoon that Murray was also responsible for a shooting that left two others dead at the Youth With a Mission center in Arvada. Five others were injured in the attacks.
Assam, a former police officer from Minneapolis, says she was inside the church when she heard gunfire from the parking lot.
“The shots were so loud I thought he was inside and he wasn’t even inside yet,” Assam said on Monday afternoon. “There was chaos. There were a lot of people in the church.”
“I saw him coming through the doors and I took cover. And I waited for him to get closer and came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down,” she said.
She appeared along side New Life Church Pastor Brady Boyd at the news conference on Monday.
“If we had not had an armed person on our campus, 50 to 100 people could have lost their lives yesterday,” said Boyd.
Hmmmm…and to think, she’s not even part of a “well-regulated militia”!
And they were dead. Mr. Horn has not yet been charged, but a grand jury will most likely hear the case. However, “The Factor” has been investigating, and the victims or perpetrators, depending on your point of view, were both illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds. So once again, our chaotic immigration system has led to death.
Miguel Dejesus and Diego Ortiz were both from Colombia. Dejesus spent six years in a Texas prison for drug dealing, then was deported. Obviously, he came back illegally. Ortiz was arrested by Houston police on a drug charge. We don’t know much more about him, because Houston is a “Sanctuary City” and does not cooperate with Homeland Security or with the press in matters involving criminal aliens.
As you may know, Houston is one of the most crime ridden cities in America and criminal aliens have added to that problem. Mayor Bill White and Police Chief Harold Hurtt remain totally defiant in the face of all the chaos. They are supported by the far left Houston Chronicle but now they may be partly responsible for the deaths of Dejesus and Ortiz.
You see, if Mayor White and Chief Hurtt would themselves obey the law and inform Homeland Security any time an illegal alien is arrested, some of the deadly dealings might stop. But White and Hurtt refuse to do that. …
No word yet as to whether Homeland Security will charge the homeowner for blasting the criminal aliens.
The U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear the case of whether or not D.C.’s ban on possession of handguns is constitutional. The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the ban was unconstitutional (in violation of the Second Amendment), so D.C. appealed.
Here are a couple of predictions:
1. The Court will reverse the Court of Appeals’ ruling, 5-4. All four liberals, plus Kennedy, will side with D.C. The liberal argument will be that the Second Amendment is not an individual right (despite the annoying fact that every single one of the remaining Bill of Rights mysteriously is). Kennedy’s “moderate” argument will be one of the following:
- if there were a total ban on guns (i.e. hunting rifles), then the ban would be unconstitutional, but since there isn’t such a complete ban, there’s no problem with the current ban.
- the Second Amendment addresses state militias, and since D.C. is not a state, then the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to D.C. Don’t laugh, since this “D.C. isn’t a state” argument is used a lot (see no representation in Congress).
2. The Court will uphold the Court of Appeals’ ruling, 5-4. All four liberals will dissent, and Kennedy will say that gun control is fine and dandy, but not gun control as broad as D.C.’s gun ban.
One side note: D.C. said the purpose of the handgun ban is because “handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia.” Are they saying that hunting rifles do have a legit use in the urban D.C.? “Excuse me, Senator, but I see a 12-point buck crossing Pennsylvania Avenue. Could you hand me my .30-06?” You D.C. morons are gonna have to do better than that.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett