Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

ROS sends us a link to a PR Newswire piece from Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) which claims that Chicago’s police superintendent Garry McCarthy disqualifies himself from being any sort of authority on the 2nd Amendment;

Appearing on a Chicago Sunday morning talk show, superintendent Garry McCarthy expressed his conviction that firearm owners who lobby their elected representatives or who donate money to political campaigns are engaged in corruption that endangers public safety. McCarthy went on to express his belief that judges and legislators should rely on public opinion polls when interpreting our Constitution.

After totally dismissing the citizen’s right to redress grievances, McCarthy trained his constitutional wisdom on the 2nd Amendment. Despite recent court decisions to the contrary, McCarthy opined that the 2nd Amendment limits citizens to owning smooth-bore muskets. McCarthy went on to say that he believes that the 2nd Amendment supports mandatory liability insurance for firearm owners and the mandatory application of GPS tracking devices to civilian owned firearms.

“Garry McCarthy’s understanding of our Constitution barely qualifies him as a meter maid, never mind the chief of the nation’s third largest police department,” commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.

So all of us people who take the time to follow the laws of our respective governments to legally own guns are somehow corrupt and endanger our communities? More so than criminals, I suppose. How many people in Chicago have been killed by legal gun owners with legally purchased guns? I’m guessing but – none.

If I was the police superintendent of Chicago, I’d be looking for ways to end the infamous corruption of the city’s government and getting illegal guns off the streets rather than demonizing the folks who follow the laws, as few as they might be in that bastion of gun control.

Oh, the irony. A few days after the Obama administration parades police officers sympathetic to their gun grab, we have the same liberals who support gun control effusively supporting a cop killer. From social media to mainstream we find those who supposedly want firearms removed from society celebrating their use when it comes to killing cops in California. From Facebook to Twitter to Chris Matthews and NBC, there comes an outpouring of sympathy and support for a rogue cop who has murdered other cops as well as total innocents, and vowed to murder more before he was taken out by those he targeted.

An obviously disturbed ex-cop and recently discharged naval reserve officer goes on a rampage of resentment with a declared intent of murdering police officers and the Blue liberals of this country align themselves with him, effectively saying they approve of killing serving police officers. This should really be no surprise as liberals have been supporting cop killers since the 1970’s when the good buddy of our commander-in-chief, Bill Ayres, found police personnel and police facilities legitimate targets for his domestic terror campaign. That this murderous thug is not in prison for life is a travesty. That he’s a confidante of an American president is a disgrace.

So, I would ask all those officers in that not-so-Long Blue Line who lined up to be smartly-uniformed, photo-shoot mannequins for Obama’s gun-control pitch, how do you like being in bed with those who celebrate and revel in seeing you and your kind dead? Consider for a moment that you were paraded before the cameras as useful idiots by a political movement that ultimately bears you no good will. You should ask yourselves which Americans immerse themselves in the cop-killing lyrics of rap and the celebration of anarchy. Are those the folks who typically would be called conservatives who want to preserve the freedoms guaranteed them by the constitution? Of course they aren’t. Are they the keyboard-pounding lefties supporting a cop-killing misfit in California? Well just look at the Internet and the answer becomes obvious.

Law-abiding Americans who want to keep and bear arms, even so-called assault rifles, are not the enemies of the police. We are your most solid supporters. We’re not the ones who call you pigs. It is the same Left who wants to disarm Americans who also bears a deep burning resentment and hatred of those of you who protect and serve. That anti-police animus goes back to the birth of communism in czarist Russia and it hasn’t weakened a bit in the intervening years. They hate you, purely and simply, but they have no compunctions against enlisting you in their cause when it suits and serves them, as Obama just did. The rallying of the Left and the mainstream media to this California cop-killer should be a wake-up call for those of you who have been seduced into serving their gun control efforts. Law enforcement officers around this country allowing themselves to be used by Obama need to wake up and realize the truth:

Blue America does not Back the Blue; sadly they do, however, celebrate your killers.

Crossposted at American Thinker

LanceCooley sends us a link to bizarre story in The Blaze about Emeryville, Calif. Police Chief Ken James who claims that guns are not defensive weapons, so he wants “reasonable” gun control.

“One issue that always boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon,” he said. “That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon.”

He was speaking during a press conference promoting strict gun laws in California. James is also the chairman of the Police Chief Association’s Firearms Committee.

“A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power,” James added. “Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon.”

A good example of a failed public school education. So, is he saying that the police are aggressively enforcing the law with their side arms? the police don’t draw their weapons unless they’re threatened, and citizens are required by law to only use their weapons when they’re threatened – so WTF is Chief James talking about? I don’t think he knows either. Clearly he’s trying to pursue a political agenda and justify grabbing citizens’ guns to himself. Because he can’t think the rest of us are paying attention to his ignorant ass.

If I wrote a post about everything i disagreed with in last night State of the Union Address, we’d be here all day, so let’s just look at gun control. While the gun grabbing fascists in Congress stood and applauded wildly, the President said (from The Hill);

“Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote,” he added. “Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple vote.”

While no one in this audience will disagree that many of the victims of gun violence can be described as anything but tragedies. However, even the President and the Vice President have admitted that their proposals will do little if anything to reduce gun violence, so the scary-looking gun ban is nothing more than political theater, and they don’t mind standing on the fallen bodies of the victims to proclaim their support for nothing more than an act.

Can anyone explain to me how registering guns across the country will prevent gun violence? One of my scary looking guns I’ve owned for more than 35 years and I’ve never committed a crime with it. The only warm bodies I’ve fired at with it was a pack of coyotes who were circling our camp site one night. How would registering that weapon make anyone safer? Well, gun registration is only precursor to confiscation – that’s the only answer. Even Canadian news anchor, Brian Lilley, recognizes that simple truth.

President Obama has been adamant that he’s not coming for our guns, but we know from four years of experience that what he says is the exact opposite of what he means.

By the way, Olympic Arms has joined Magpul (the Pmags people) and LaRue Tactical in boycotting local governments who inflict strict gun regulations on the people by refusing to sell their wares to those governments according to a link sent to us by Old Trooper;

Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.

In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.

Let that be a warning to Maryland, Minnesota and Colorado as they discuss their restrictive gun laws to enslave their citizens.

Personally, I wouldn’t let Joe Biden pick out my underwear, but he told House Democrats at their retreat that the government can tell you what weapons you can own says Politico;

“It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.”

Now, I’m no constitutional scholar, but I’m pretty sure that the federal government doesn’t have any rights. I skimmed the Bill of Rights a few times, and couldn’t find any rights, per se, in there for the feds. I see the tenth amendment with States’ rights. So, I’m concluding that Bite Me doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

“Don’t tell me because we can’t solve it all, we can’t act at all. … when people tell me you can’t prevent these kinds of occurrences that doesn’t mean we can’t do something so god forbids if it happens again, diminish the carnage,” he said.

Yup, we just have to do something, anything. Of course, unfortunately for the country, he’ll still have his job in January 2015. Because if they go through with their gun ban, many of the Democrats in that room won’t be in Congress.

According to Politico, Joe Bite Me ran off his rails and waved off his handlers to tell reporters that new gun regulations aren’t going to guarantee an end to gun violence in the country, but, he admits, it’s most important that the hand-wringers see the government do something, anything, effective or, most likely, otherwise;

“The point I was making was, you know, the visual image of those 20 innocent children being riddled with bullets has absolutely not only traumatized the nation, but it has caused, it’s like the straw that broke the camel’s backs,” Biden said.

Biden said the change in opinion is so stark that there is now an expectation for Congress to act.

“I believe that the American people will not understand and I think everyone in there, I know everyone in that caucus agrees with me, will not understand if we don’t act,” Biden said.

It’s like I’ve been saying since the beginning of this – its not about ending gun violence, it’s about those emotional creeps who are still emoting over the sight of broken young bodies – it’s how that made them feel bad and they don’t want to feel like that again. it’s not about the tragedy of dead children or the broken families, its about how it made them feel. And if they do something, they’ll feel better about themselves and if they get to take rights away from other Americans while they’re doing something, well, that’s just gravy. It proves that they did something hard and justifies what they did to us.

That’s why they think they can make us feel bad about ourselves by saying that we’re cowardly because we feel that we need guns to protect ourselves. That’s the kind of thing that would make them feel bad, so they think that we run on emotions just like them.

This Internet is such a wonderful teaching device. Everyday my knowledge expands thanks to things I uncover on my own but even more so from that small band of military brothers who daily drop tidbits into my mailbox. Such is how I first learned of the history of the Sword Hunts, a series of repeated transgressions in Japanese history that served to keep that nation in a state of feudalism until the 19th Century.

The what? The Sword Hunts, a despicable series of mass disarmaments of the people in feudal Japan for precisely the purpose of eliminating them as a threat to tyranny. The most powerful of the Japanese lords knew well that an armed peasantry presented a constant threat in a feudal society where order and good discipline were to be the province of the Samurai or warrior class, who roughly equate to a much more savage version of medieval, European knights. While Teutonic knights, Knights Templars and others of the European knights were frequently indiscriminate in their killing, the Samurai possessed a standing warrant to kill any ordinary Japanese citizen at will for the slightest infraction of rules or show of disrespect. Possession of any weapon of defense was an immediate death warrant.

And kill them they did because, first, they simply could under existing law, and second because it was so easy for that simple reason that the peasants were forbidden to possess arms. To ensure that the people had no means of defense or retaliation, the rulers of Japan conducted periodic Sword Hunts where all weapons were confiscated from all Japanese but those in the nobility and the Samurai classes. The most effective of these Sword Hunts occurred under the dictate of warlord and imperial regent, Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the 16th century. He so thoroughly disarmed the common people of Japan that they remained helpless, kneeling, head-bowing servants of the ruling class until Commodore Matthew Perry sailed into Uraga Harbor near Edo in 1853 and opened up Japanese culture to western democratic concepts.

So why all this Japanese history, you ask? Substitute Gun Grab for Sword Hunt and consider that the tyrannical threats to humanity never really change. There have always been and there will always be those self-anointed patricians among us who think they know better than we do as to how our lives should be ordered. One thing these elitists know full well is that it is much easier to impose their version of social order on the rest of us if they and their enforcers are heavily armed while the masses are not. Toyotomi Hideyoshi knew just as assuredly as did Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, that you will never break the people to your yoke as long as they possess arms. Each of those leaders disarmed his people and then proceeded to exterminate hundreds of millions of them who refused to submit.

Two things Americans should take away from this history lesson: Never ever trust a politician who says, “Trust me;” and more importantly, never ever let him talk you into surrendering your guns no matter how slickly persuasive he may be. Unless, that is, you want, like those several centuries of Japanese peasants, to kneel beside the road with your foreheads touching the ground in abject obeisance as Barack’s Homeland Security Forces patrol your streets.

Molon labe…

Crossposted at American Thinker

The Hill reports that Harry Reid stops short of supporting Diane Feinstein’s disarmament bill currently wending it’s way through the Senate halls;

Reid said he would bring gun-violence legislation to the floor and open it to a lengthy amendment process. But he declined to endorse the assault weapons ban introduced last week by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which has the support of the 2nd- and 3rd-ranking Senate Democratic leaders.

“She’s talked to me about her assault weapons. The new one. She believes in it fervently and I admire her for that. I’ll take a look at that,” he said in response to a reporter’s question.

The article goes on to say that Republicans speculate that Reid won’t bring the bill to the Senate for a vote. But Reid says that’s not true. I think it will go to the Senate for a vote and it may even pass there, but it’s doubtful if Feinstein doesn’t give up some of her points. I don’t think the Senate, or the House for that matter, will support registering grandfathered weapons in any form.

Yeah, if you didn’t know it already, Reid is a coward. He knows that his party will pay a price for gun control legislation in his state and nationally, so he’s voting “present” so he doesn’t get blamed.

The problem for gun owners is in the States – Maryland for example is considering a proposal by idiot governor Marty O’Malley to ban scary black rifles and large capacity magazines, and apparently most of the morons in Maryland support the new bill, the same morons who returned O’Malley to office after he spent the surplus that Erlich left him in weeks, raising taxes a few months later to pay for his largesse. Somehow, O’Malley thinks that ending the death penalty in Maryland should be included in the citizen disarmament bill. That makes perfect sense to me :eyeroll: