Saturday, January 26, 2013

Feinstein's New Gun Ban Bill,
If It Becomes Law [Doubtful]
Would Exempt Gov't Officials

So it's just the unwashed masses that would be unable to purchase the weapons on DiFi's ban list:

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.
“Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel,” the Washington Times reports.
Here's the list of the semi auto weapons DiFi is seeking to ban for sale to the SERFS: 

So, once again: one set of rules for us, another set of rules for the jackasses who think they comprise some sort of 'elite' that are up there to rule over us.  Mary Katherine Ham at Hot Air calls this for the sanctimonious BS that it is: 
I’m always confused by how liberals— the segment of the population most obsessed with constantly telling us of our country’s sins, its government’s brutal overreaches, its occasional tyranny, and its fundamental disregard for the justice it promises— suddenly decide the idea of governments becoming tyrannical is a paranoid delusion once the wary citizen is a gun owner. Presumably you’re only allowed to believe the government might become tyrannical and still be a respected political figure and college professor if your weapon of choice was a nail bomb meant for Ft. Dix.
That's a dig at the Bill-Ayers-Is-A-Cool-Guy-Because-He-Took-On-A-Tyrannical-US-Government-With-A-Bombing-Campaign Left, in case you missed it.  

Joe Biden:  A Shotgun Is Better
For Self-Defense Than 
One Of Those Military-Style 
Assault Weapon AR-15's

Oh really?  Someone might need to tell Slow Joe why the AR-15 is a WOMAN'S PREFERRED DEFENSE WEAPON OF CHOICE. 

Practical experience has taught a lot of women about why the lighter, easier to fire and control AR-15 is more preferable than a 12 gauge. 

YouTube is chock full of videos of 100 pound girls getting owned by shotguns.  Here's just a few examples: 

On the other hand, AR-15's are so easy to shoot and control that 100 pound girls can fire them while SITTING DOWN.  

Another fact to consider is when you shoot someone with a shotgun round and hit them, they are actually being hit by  one HUGE SLUG or a dozen projectiles.  It's MUCH easier to survive getting shot with a single AR-15 round than getting hit with a round from a 12 gauge shotgun.  

Which will do way more damage: the single round that is made up of a single piece of metal, OR the single round that will send either a humongous steel slug or a dozen or more steel balls into the target? 

It's important to make this distinction because protecting yourself isn't necessarily about making sure you KILL somebody.   Many people would much prefer to put a single round into an attacker, ending the threat, but not killing anybody.  With a shotgun your chance of a 1 shot kill is GREATLY magnified.  

This is why Joe Biden is simply wrong about this. A shotgun is NOT the best weapon for self defense. 

Monday, January 21, 2013

The first sign of a free people with real liberty is that they are not
'allowed to have' arms by their Government;
they have them by right whether the 
f**king Government likes it or not. - me, just now

There's Only One
Explanation As To
Why Most Americans
Still Don't Know
This Important Fact: 

The State Doesn't Want Most People To Know It


You'd be AMAZED at how many people don't know this.  Yet this has been demonstrated to be the case in courts of law REPEATEDLY:

Do You Have A Right To Police Protection?

The case law on this is incontrovertible. The answer is a resounding NO!

Yet during this whole gun control debate going on the past month after the Sandy Hook tragedy, it keeps being said: "Trying to defend yourself with a gun is nonsensical. Just call the police, let them handle it."

This kind of advice overlooks facts:

1. You often won't know you NEED the police until the crime is IN PROGRESS.  Average police response time from when the call is made to their arrival at a crime scene is FIVE MINUTES.
The average incident between a criminal and his victim is NINETY SECONDS.

Here's a Dept. of Justice report on police response times to calls for help compiled from 1996-2007:

2. You may not have time or even be able to dial a phone or scream for someone else to make a call to police on your behalf.

3. You may be too busy running, hiding, fighting to call for aid.

And once you finally DO get off a call for help, you'll STILL be on your own for around FIVE MINUTES.

Unless you got Mad Kung Fu Skillz, were a star on your high school track team, or have the hiding ability of a ninja, you just MIGHT have to defend  yourself until the trained, armed professionals get there to take over.

But understand THIS: the same Liberal authorities in those deep-blue crime-infested cities who strongly DISCOURAGE you from buying a gun, learning to use it, and having it for self protection ALSO will accept NO RESPONSIBILITY for protecting/defending you with THEIR 'official' guns.

If your Plan A, B, & C is to outsource your self defense to the State, you better come to understand ONE THING: that State you are relying on as your sole means of self-defense ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOU WHATSOEVER.

They mess up, don't show up on time, or even never show AT ALL, not only can you not sue them for damages [assuming that you're still, you know, ALIVE] you'll discover they never had any obligation to protect you in the FIRST PLACE.

What sense does it make to say "I take no steps or preparations to defend myself or my family in case of an emergency/criminal assault because I'll just wait for the people who accept no responsibility for my protection whatsoever to show up and handle this for me."

Yet I've encountered plenty of people on Twitter recently who are saying to others "Don't buy a gun, don't take any steps to defend yourself, just call the police, let them handle it. It's what we pay them for, duh!"
"A GUN?! Seriously? You're better off just submitting,
being a victim & giving them what they want. Wingnut! 

If YOU want to take no steps to defend yourself, FINE.  Do that.  Hide in the closet, pray they don't find you and hope someone comes to save  your ass in time.  What pisses off many Americans is watching people with that attitude turn around and pontificate that those of us who want a gun for self-protection are some kinda violence-crazed lunatics.

Maybe it's time to consider that many people in America know it's up to THEM to keep themselves & their family safe in the event of a criminal attack or other emergency.  They know this truth, that the police have no duty to come do it for them, and so they don't need to live behind a comfortable illusion.

UPDATE: Milwaukee Sheriff tells citizens the truth, Liberals get the vapors over it:

Time to ask again: which side in this gun control debate is dealing with REALITY and which one is trying to sell a COMFORTABLE ILLUSION to the public? 

How To Totally F**k Up
Your Middle Eastern Policy
In Just 10 Easy Steps

Thursday, January 17, 2013

2 Effective Plans Of
Action In The On-Going
Gun Control Debate
For Conservatives

Plan #1
We Need To Stop Letting The Gun Control Hysterics Set The Terms Of The Debate By Using Emotive Terms Like  "Assault Weapons"

We are still using the Left's language every time we say 'Assault Weapon' even when correcting them

Americans do not have or want 'assault weapons'. They want DEFENSE weapons. CRIMINALS want assault weapons!

We think we are answering the argument when we explain it's not an assault weapon, it's a semi-auto rifle or handgun. But are we really?

They choose to constantly use the world ASSAULT for a reason

"Why do you need an ASSAULT weapon?" The emotive term 'assault' is picked very carefully.

They are ginning up hysteria based on hoplophobia which is a fear of weapons and THE PEOPLE WHO CARRY THEM.

"You want that weapon so you can ASSAULT people with it if you feel like it!" That's what they mean when they say 'assault weapon'.

This is why they constantly gin up this fear that gun owning Americans are gonna FREAK OUT at any moment and whip out their gun & shoot

'Assault weapons' are for ASSAULTING people, so the only reason you want 1 is because you are some kinda unstable nut hoping to shoot someone.'

So here's what we need to do. Here's our plan of action: WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE TERM 'ASSAULT' AWAY FROM THEM.#DEFENSEWEAPON

Every single time some gun control hysteric says 'Assault Weapon', you say 'Defensive Weapon'. We're going to stop using THEIR language.

They say 'Assault Rifle'? You say 'Defensive Rifle'. Because that's what it is. It's a weapon for DEFENDING yourself with.

Every single time they say 'Assault' you say 'Defense'. CCW holders do not carry guns to ASSAULT people with. #DEFENSEWEAPON

We can no longer allow them to frame the debate as if we are trying to justify ASSAULTING others as a right. #DEFENSEWEAPON

THAT is what they are constantly claiming: we are trying to defend a right to ASSAULT. Actually, we are talking about a right to DEFEND.

But as long as we let THEM set the terms, they are going to continue their hysterics.

Make a commitment, Twitter & anywhere else you see a gun control hysteric saying 'Assault weapon' you will fire back 'Defense Weapon'

You know why Chicago has the rate of gun crime/murder that it does & Houston - with 20x the # of guns in it - has far less?

Because in Chicago it's the CRIMINALS using the guns to assault people. 1,000's of people walking armed around Houston AREN'T criminals

It's who HAS the guns. Houston will have many, many x the # of guns that Chicago has, yet gun crime is 1000% lower. Why?

If GUNS themselves are the problem, you have to explain why CCW red state cities don't have horrific gun crime/murder rates of blue cities with the nation's strictest gun restrictions & bans.

Because in red states most of the people carrying the guns are carrying them as DEFENSIVE WEAPONS, not for crime to assault others with.

Yes, you actually have to explain this to Liberals.

Criminals DON'T carry their guns for self defense. THAT'S why deep blue cities with strict gun control have the high crime/murder rates. The only non-cops on their streets carrying guns - the criminals - ARE carrying them to assault other people with.

This is why Chicago can have 190 shootings in a month & 22 dead people in 11 days and Houston will have something like 50 shootings and 10 gun murders a month.  In 2011 Houston had a historic low 195 murders that year, and of course not every murder was committed with a firearm.   That same year Chicago had 448, over 80% by guns.

Both cities have over 2 million people in them (Chicago 2.7 mil, Houston 2.1), but they have VERY divergent violent crime rates, especially when it comes to gun crime and homicides.

By constantly using the term 'Assault weapon' gun grabbers try to give the impression you are just like a CRIMINAL who wants a gun to assault others with.

But you 're NOT a criminal. You don't have a gun or carry 1 to ASSAULT other people with. You have it to defend yourself & your family with it if need be

So be clear in these discussions: "This is NOT an 'assault weapon'. This is a #DEFENSEWEAPON. There's a difference. I'm not a criminal"

We don't go around looking for opportunities to ASSAULT with our weapons like criminals do. STOP CONFUSING US & OUR GUNS with CRIMINAL PREDATORS.

The gun control crowd has been building the case that 'you want an assault weapon for assaults. That makes you unstable, dangerous!'

Use your OWN language, not their loaded language. "I have a gun for defense. I'm not walking around looking for people to attack."

"CRIMINALS walk around looking for people to assault with their weapons. I would only DEFEND myself. Are you confusing me with a CRIMINAL?"

Force them to recognize we are not criminals looking for victims, and our guns are #DEFENSEWEAPON

Here's your Twitter hashtag for demonstrating  you are joining the movement to take away the gun control mob's illegitimate use of the words 'Assault Weapons':  #DEFENSEWEAPON

Plan #2: 

Make them defend gun restrictions/bans on purely utilitarian grounds.  In other words, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY MAKE PEOPLE SAFER OR NOT. 

The other night Piers Morgan held a 'town hall' on gun control on his CNN show.  

At one point, a lady asked a VERY pertinent question about the kind of gun bans/restrictions Piers and others are presently clamoring for.   Cities have ALREADY enacted very strict bans.  Have they worked? 

Did these incredibly strict gun restrictions/bans make these cities safer? Did the gun crime and murder rates go down or up after the  new laws were enacted? 

Piers Morgan obviously knows the answer, because he couldn't dodge the question by changing the subject fast enough. 

Washington DC and Chicago are the prime examples that anyone who follows the gun control debate knows about.  The results of their gun bans are well know.  

DC's gun ban isn't as strict as it used to be after the Heller decision in 2008.  What happened after Washington DC's unconstitutional total ban on gun ownership was struck down by the Supreme Court? 

The murder rate plummeted from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012.
Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected.
As the author noted, many predicted murders in Washington would EXPLODE once the gun ban was ended.  Instead, the EXACT OPPOSITE HAPPENED. 

In Chicago? The politicians in that city have confidently predicted after each new round of restrictive gun control legislation that a big DROP in their gun crime/murder rates was just around the corner.  

Instead of the predicted drop in gun crime/murder however, what results is a continuing INCREASE.  They keep getting the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they predict.  

In both cases, the gun control advocates are proven wrong by the facts. They predict a drop in gun crime after their ban is enacted and then end up staring at a marked increase; when their gun ban is ended, they predict a huge increase in gun crime and stare in shock at a big drop the rate instead.  

So based on what we've seen, here are the 5 Questions to ask someone advocating gun bans/restrictions on law abiding American citizens as to whether these kind of laws actually bring about the intended results or not: 

1. Is there any EVIDENCE gun bans/restrictions make citizens safer?

2. Which cities in America HAVE the strictest gun bans? Did these cities see their gun crime/murder rates DROP or INCREASE after the bans/restrictions were enacted? If not, why not?

3. Has enough evidence been compiled as to whether strict gun bans reduce violent gun crime in America? If so, have you investigated such evidence?

4. If gun bans & restrictions work, why ISN'T Chicago the safest city in America right now?

5. If gun bans/restrictions work, why did Washington DC see it's homicide rate drop from 186 in 2008 to just 88 in 2012 after the Supreme court ended the cities unconstitutional total ban on handgun ownership?

Asking these questions will force the gun control advocate to focus on the EFFECTIVENESS of what they are advocating - a subject many of them try to avoid like the plague.  

Amazing to consider, but I've seen this time and again. They advocate passionately and often angrily for these supposed remedies to the problem, yet clearly DON'T want to discuss if these measures actually DO make people safer or not.  

Yet this really IS the only thing there is worth discussing, isn't it? If they're pushing for new laws/bans/restrictions to be made, of course they SHOULD be willing to discuss how well these things have worked in the past.  

But they will dodge the question of utilitarian effectiveness IF YOU LET THEM.  

DON'T let them dodge the actual RESULTS of what they are advocating.  

So here's your other hashtag:  #WHATARETHERESULTS?

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Why You Should No Longer 
Feel Sorry For Chicago Or
Any Other Large Urban City 
With An Out-Of-Control
Gun Violence Problem:

They Are Doing This

Two news stories from the last couple of weeks illustrate what the REAL problem is in Chicago, why they are having 190+ shootings in a month and had 22 murders in the first 11 days of 2013. 

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel keeps going in front of cameras and insisting the REAL PROBLEM is all these ILLEGAL GUNS that keep ending up causing shootings inside his precious city.  So he's pressing for a new slew of gun control laws to 'fix' the problem.  


News story #1:,0,964697.story

Gee, out on bond for SEVERAL weapons charges, you say? How many are we talking about here? 
How about....FOUR?  And guess what else? 

That's right. This guy had FOUR pending weapons charges waiting for trial from last September, and this wasn't just him showing a gun to somebody.  Note the additional charges: two counts of  unlawful use of a weapon ON A PERSON.  That means this guy SHOT at people at least twice.  Yet a judge allowed him to post 10% of a $40,000 bond and RIGHT BACK OUT ONTO THE STREETS HE WENT.  

And on January 13, acting on an animal cruelty report, cops find this thug with...not just another gun, but MULTIPLE GUNS: 
Inside the home, officers found cannabis, cocaine, and more than $1,500 in cash, police said. Officers also found a Yugoslavian semi-automatic assault rifle and a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun, neither of which was registered as legally required, police said.
They catch them with guns....they take the guns away...they turn them loose...then they catch them....AGAIN...with.........MORE guns....

Now Rahm Emanual, due to the way his brain is wired, will read that story and go "Oh hey, see? Exactly what I have been saying! Note all the ILLEGAL GUNS  in this news story?  We really need to pass more laws to keep those ILLEGAL GUNS out of the city of Chicago!" 

Rahm's brain isn't wired to notice the central ACTOR in these crimes, just the OBJECTS the actor is using.  The CAREER CRIMINAL who keeps getting arrested with new guns isn't the problem, it's the guns themselves.  

News Story #2:,0,7096338.story
Yep. Already a suspect in a murder, he's been out wandering around the streets for 3 years while awaiting trial and here he is racking up another victim. 

Another career criminal, caught repeatedly....turned loose repeatedly.  Even after they really think he killed somebody and needed to go to trial for it.  Note these are the only two new crimes where they really think it was HIM, the 2 days of rape and the carjacking of the 70 year old man.  In the past 3 years he likely racked up a hell of a lot more than just 2 new victims where the cops have no clue it was him.  

Liberals get spitting mad if you point out it's the large urban cities in deep-blue states with the STRICTEST gun control that have the highest gun-crime and murder rates.  They don't LIKE people pointing out this fact.  

But the fact is. Liberals have been running these big cities for decades.  They OWN this problem.  They created this revolving door justice system from the ground up.  They can't foist any responsibility on it over to the few Conservatives in their midst.  

That's why their only recourse on the gun crime issue when it comes up is MISDIRECTION.  They HAVE to keep the public's eyes off their policy failures by giving them a SCAPEGOAT.  

As I said on Twitter the other day [the bottom one is the 1st tweet, so read from the bottom up]

Their failed POLICIES that can't keep truly dangerous people locked up - or get mentally ill people the treatment they need - can NEVER become the focus of the discussion.  This is why they have to leap within hours of something like Sandy Hook or a particularly violent Chicago weekend to 'remind' everybody the problem is those EVIL GUNS.  

Legal, law abiding gun owners are the ONLY PEOPLE you can affect with new laws.  Criminals & crazy people will ignore any new law  you pass, just like none of the old laws you passed did a thing to stop them.  

Liberals know this, which is why they have to go about demonizing the legal gun owners to advance their agenda, generating a whole slew of propaganda about how there's something 'wrong' and 'not quite right' with people who own guns or want guns.  This puts law abiding gun owners on the defensive from the start, which is the POINT. 

You do not debate Constitutional rights with people.  Every time they set you up by asking you to 'justify why you need a gun' they might as well be asking you why you need free speech or freedom of religion.  Nobody every asks you to justify your 1st, 3rd, or 4th Amendment rights, so why do we always end up having to 'explain' how the Constitution gives individual citizens the right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment?

Yet because they control the discussion, the Liberals and the MSM are able to frame it exactly how they want it, getting the other side on the defensive from the beginning and keeping them there.  It's time to totally turn the tables on them.  Don't even pay attention to a demand that  you justify your right to own a gun.  It's time to make them DISCUSS THEIR FAILED POLICIES. 

WHY was this career criminal back out on the streets committing his 4th violent felony after you already took 3 guns off of him in the past?  

WHY did this obviously mentally ill person never get the treatment they needed by being involuntarily committed?  

HOW was a 5 time loser allowed to plea bargain down from armed robbery with a handgun, post bond, and be running around the streets to shoot someone else? 

It's time THEY ended up on the defensive, not people who are standing up for a precious Constitutional right.  

This is why the NRA & Wayne LaPierre had the right strategy after Sandy Hook.  They went on the offensive.  They didn't play the Liberal's game of starting on the defensive.  

After 2 weeks of the Left either mocking LaPierre or pretending to have the vapors over his suggestion of placing more armed people in schools, look what happened.  He stood firm and waited for the discussion to go his way.  Maybe the GOP could learn something from that.  

So here's my call to the Conservatives here & on Twitter: Forget playing defense on the 2nd Amendment.  It's time to go on offense.  

Friday, January 11, 2013

We Are NOT A Nation With
An Elite Class & Then
Everybody Else

We Are A Nation Of Laws,
Not of Men!

OK I'm Kidding. 
We Just Had It Proven
Yet Again All That Matters 
Is Who You Are
& Who You Know

Alternate Headline: David Gregory Gets Off For Breaking A Law Where You Or I Would Have Ended Up In Jail

It was announced today that the Washington DC AG will not prosecute NBC New's David Gregory after he knowingly violated a DC law by waving around a high capacity magazine on the set of Meet The Press.

NBC News had sought clarification of DC's law making possession of such a high capacity magazine a felony before the show aired, and had been told by DC Police it would be an illegal act. 

Gregory then decided to display the magazine on the show any way.  Because it made such good theater when he waved it in NRA President Wayne LaPierre's face and all.  

I'm pretty sure David Gregory knows how the system in DC works, so he was aware he'd be pretty safe pulling a stunt that would get a lot of other people tossed ass first into a jail cell.  

David Gregory = NOT one of us little people. 

It's obvious that had this been, say, a US Marine traveling around Washington DC with such a magazine in his car, you know, an ordinary citizen and not one of the Special Elite Class that Liberals think should be running America and dictating sh*t to the rest of us, he'd have been arrested on the spot and be running up legal bills trying to avoid prison.  

Kinda like THIS guy here:

Hmmm. Yep, James Brinkley is most definitely NOT a member of 
Washington D.C.'s white liberal elite class.  

105 people were arrested in DC in 2012 for just being FOUND to have a magazine that took more than 10 bullets in their POSSESSION.  The magazine did not have to be in a gun and it did not have to have any bullets in it.  

Brinkley's case gets the most media attention because it's the biggest WTF??!! example out of that lot.  But there are plenty of others.  

This is nothing more than the same Zero Tolerance BS we've seen in schools, where kindergartners get a ride to the local police station in hand cuffs because a search of their backpacks turned up a plastic knife their mother put there for Crafts class.  

Just HAVING the object makes you a criminal.  Intent doesn't even enter into the equation.  The death of common sense in an over-legalized society is almost complete.  We used to demand people exercise judgement, but the great thing about Zero Tolerance on the Left is that it ENDS the need for common sense and judgment - this insanity actually appeals to their sense of fairness!  Every one will be treated EXACTLY ALIKE! 

But in the real world? Of COURSE everyone will NOT be treated alike.  Zero Tolerance laws are just for the little people, after all.  So 105 little people in Washington DC get arrested and get court dates and have to fight to keep from going to prison. 

David Gregory? Not so much.  Because as it so happens, he and his wife are part of this elite DC inner circle and they KNOW certain people.

Emily Miller sums it up best: 

Mr. Brinkley believes the “Meet the Press” anchor is receiving special treatment because of his high-profile job. “I’m an average person,” Mr. Brinkley said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times. “There seems to be a law for us and a law for the upper echelon.” 
Mr. Brinkley was publicly humiliated, thrown in jail and forced to spend money to defend himself for violating a law that millions of viewers watched the NBC anchor violate. If D.C. is going to have this pointless law, it should at least be enforced fairly.

Kinda funny that the Liberal Elite that whine and caterwaul about 'fairness' all the time will always excuse themselves when it's time to pony up and take one for the team, isn't it? 

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Hey, Nice Going There, 
You Buncha Gun-Grabbing

NRA Adds 100,000 New Paid Memberships In 18 Days
Holophobia: pejorative[1] neologism originally coined to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them."[2] It is sometimes used more generally to describe the "fear of weapons"[3][4] or the "highly salient danger of these weapons " [5] or the "fear of armed citizens".[6]
I once had a conversation with a friend that clearly displayed his hoplophobia.  We had attended a Christian Promisekeepers conference in Houston where we'd driven up there and back with a group of friends.  One of these friends, the nicest elderly fellow you could ever hope to meet, is a long time CCW permit holder named 'Lee'.  The other was a friend I'll call 'Joe'.  We all went to the same church.  We all had known each other at this time for well over 2 years.  

On the way back, I noticed Joe insisted on sitting in the backseat with me despite the fact he'd ridden up to Houston in the front seat.  I didn't think that was unusual until we were at a convenience store buying snacks and using the rest room.  It became apparent Joe did not want to get within 10 feet of Lee.  Then he waited until Lee was in the front seat behind the wheel before carefully climbing into the back seat, keeping his eyes on Lee the entire time.  

Now this was about a 4 hour trip.  After the convenience store, I'm noticing Joe is staring up at Lee in the front seat and it's a FEARFUL stare.  I could not for the life of me figure out what was going on.  

It was not until weeks later in a casual conversation Joe told me he no longer wanted anything to do with Lee because he was a 'bad person'.  I asked him how he knew this, and Joe told me while we were in Houston for the Promisekeepers conference, he had seen a GUN inside Lee's jacket while we dined in a restaurant there.

Now I had to suppress a laugh.  I'd known Lee for about 8 years at that point.  Been to his house shooting often.  I had thought it was well known he carried.  But Joe had not known this.  So I asked him, "Lee's having a concealed carry permit, why is that a problem? How does that make him a bad person?"

And Joe said something I'll never forget.  This fearful look came over his face, and he blurted out: "What if he'd pulled out that gun and shot us all?"

I was absolutely floored by this.  Joe had know Lee for 2 years at the time.  He had driven up there with Lee driving the car right next to him talking and laughing, etc. and had not had a problem in the world.  But while we were in Houston he discovered Lee had a handgun on him and it totally freaked him out.  He had fearfully driven back the entire trip expecting Lee to pull that gun at any moment.  

I now quickly discovered there is no RATIONAL way to cure a hoplophobe simply with oral argument.  I asked Joe: 

1. Have you ever seen Lee do anything crazy?
2. Ever seen Lee lose his temper, have an emotional outburst?
3. You realize you were putting your life in Lee's hands having him drive you up to Houston and back in a car, right? So why wouldn't you trust him with a gun?
4.  You realize the only way Lee would have EVER have pulled that gun would have been to defend himself and us?  

It was very telling that the only way Joe could picture Lee using that gun was on HIM.  No matter what I said, he was convinced Lee was a 'bad person' because only 'bad people' carry weapons.  

This brings to mind the recent spat of hoplophobia following the Newtown CT. massacre.  Many are now once again pretending like law-abiding gun owners are this huge problem that needs 'fixing'.  

The Left recoiled in horror when Wayne LaPierre suggest using armed guards in schools.  Not really on a 'we can't afford that' basis but almost totally on a 'OMFG, guns in schools! Ahhhhh!' basis.  

Yes, let's make a completely rational argument that people you trust to supervise and have control of your kids for 8-12 hours everyday simply CAN'T be trusted with guns.  

This is the same stupid hoplophobic argument that was made after 9-11 when the Left got the vapors and had to lie down after it was suggested that airline pilots be armed.  

We were told by these pontificating jackasses that you could only trust these pilots insofar as it came to putting your life in their hands to fly planes high up there in the air for thousands of miles, but trust these people with a GUN?  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  Why, they might SHOOT YOU while you were getting off the plane! 

So here we are again, another tragic event being seized  upon for a political agenda.  They are all hot to pass a new slew of gun control laws that criminals and crazy people won't follow, so once again the adults in the room are forced to speak up.  

How about figuring out a way to NOT let violent felons back out on the street after their 4th or 5th violent felony using a weapon? IS IT POSSIBLE? Let's discuss it.  

How about figuring out a way to better react to all the signs of a mentally ill person about to go on a rampage?  Over half of mass shooters clearly display signs of mental illness  before committing their crimes.  We can discuss that too.  

Instead these 'national discussions' following a mass shooting always focus on what evil dangerous pricks legal gun owners are and what steps need to be taken to strip/restrict their 2nd Amendment rights.  

And it never dawns on the Left they've lost this discussion and every goddamn time they bring it up all they do is remind people they think GUNS are the problem.  

All their full-blown display of hoplophobia does is increase the NRA's membership:

Gun control is a political loser.  They can keep this up if they want, but it's not going anywhere. 

PS: I'm aware the other day Biden told a group of gun crime victims that Barack Obama is considering a new executive order to get more violent repeat felony offenders off the streets.....

Oh wait no, that's not what Slow Joe said.  What he said was that President Congress, What Congress? was considering restricting gun rights by making a new executive order.  

Now, assuming this isn't just another Slow Joe brain fart, I don't know how much stock to put into this.  We already knew Obama's 2nd term was gonna see him trying to bypass the Congress on a lot of stuff & just rule via Executive Orders.  

But an executive order banning/restricting guns?  That totally bypasses a vote in Congress?  Good luck getting that thing enforced in the states.  

I would LOVE to see the fun Texas Gov. Rick Perry would have with an executive order restricting gun rights via Presidential fiat.  

UPDATE: Follow Adam Baldwin on Twitter if you haven't already.  Not only is he a great actor and a swell guy, but he's gold on the gun rights issue and is now directly spreading the message about how to cure your friends & loved ones of Hoplophobia! 

Adam Baldwin: Hoplophobia Is A Curable Disease!

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

From The "Progressives Don't Learn
Anything From Experience" Dept:

California Jacks Up The Tax Rates
Again, Sees A $1 Billion
Decline In Revenues

Alternate Headline: Dems In CA Raised Tax Rates In 2011, Saw Their Revenues Plunge, So...Raised Taxes Again In 2012.  Unexpectedly....Revenues Plunged Yet Again. 

Now I blogged on this back in May of 2012 when Governor Moonbeam & the Dems in charge in Sacramento suddenly discovered their projections about their state deficit was off by over $7 billion.  They had jacked up their tax rates the previous year and expected a lot of new revenue out of it.  Fully expecting that new revenue to materialize, they went ahead and increased their spending in anticipation of it.  

So what was their solution to the huge drop  in revenue of $7 billion+ due to their latest tax increase?


Progressives Shocked - SHOCKED!!!11! - To Discover Jacking Up Tax Rates....

So they went ahead and jacked up the tax rates......again. 

And now the results are starting to manifest themselves, surprising only...the people who run the state of California. 

CA Sees $1 Billion Drop In Tax Revenue Since Passage Of Prop 30

After Proposition 30 passed on November 6, 2012, the State of California experienced a decline in the total state revenue for the month of November. California State Controller John Chiang reported that the total revenue for the month of November declined by $806.8 million, which is 10.8 percent below budget. 
The State of California experienced a decline in its revenue as several of the high income earners have relocated to other states, and have also relocated their businesses out of state. This led to a decline in corporate and income taxrevenues by more than $1 billion. 
With the expected increase in revenue to be derived from the passing of Prop 30, state bureaucrats increased deficit spending beyond the state’s $6 billion annual tax increase. The Department of Developmental Services and the Department of Health Services increased its spending in November by over $1 billion in comparison to its spending last year. 
As a result of the decline in tax revenues collected, and the increase in spending, California’s deficit increased to $27 billion for the first five months of this fiscal year.
I suggest the Dems in CA go  ahead and jack up the tax rates AGAIN.  By golly, this thing HAS to work sooner or later, right? 

Most kids will learn not to put their hand on the hot stove after doing it once or twice.  What is Liberals in CA's excuse for not being able to figure out the Laffer Curve?  It boggles the mind. Just the previous year they had passed a tax increase, spent all the new projected revenue they figured they'd get, then found themselves staring at a $16 billion budget deficit.  So what did they do?  

Since January of 2012 Jerry Brown has grown CA's budget deficit from around 9 billion to an astounding $27 billion.  

And remember - this is just from the first couple of MONTHS of this fiscal year.   The full amount of lost revenue won't be known until later.  But thus far it's over $1 billion.  

In contrast to the absolute fiscal insanity of California, let's take a look at Texas: 

Texas Starts Budget Debate Flush With Cash

Two years ago Texas faced what many other states faced - a huge budget deficit due to a national recession.  But instead of following the blue-state prescription of simply jacking up the tax rates, increasing spending and then borrowing to make up the difference, which is exactly how CA ended up in it's present mess, Texas Gov. Rick Perry vowed to balance the budget without raising taxes or  borrowing money.  

That meant doing something that's nearly impossible in many states - cutting the spending.  Republicans in the state legislature cut spending to the bone for a 2 year period.  Even public education - which had only seen it's funding grow for 50+ years - was cut.  

Now the results of both approaches is evident. Texas might have a budget surplus of as high as $10 billion this year, while California staggers under a $27 billion deficit.  Making tough choices and doing some tough sledding for a year or two DOES pay off.  

Will CA learn from Texas' example?  Probably not.  But there's always hope.  

hat tip to @iowahawkblog's David Burge for the link, and some great Twitter snark:

Thanks to @rdbrewer4 for the sidebar posting at Ace of Spades, and welcome, Moron Horde! 

If your not reading Ace of Spades everyday, perhaps it's time to ask yourself: Why not?

UPDATE:  It was brought to my attention that Texas is booming DESPITE the fact drought is costing the state billions in lost agricultural revenue the past couple of years - over $7.5 billion in 2011 alone.  

Texas Agricultural Drought Losses In 2011 Top $7.62 Billion

So  yes, Texas is essentially doing this with one hand tied behind it's back.