Gun Control Killed; Obama’s Head Explodes

Well, the Senate effort to curtail Second Amendment rights failed today in the Senate, and in his typical th[7]fashion, the empty suit currently occupying the Oval Office placed the majority of the “blame” (“credit”, in my opinion) on the Republicans.

As most readers of my scribbling know, I’m no big fan of the GOP. But they’re not the issue here; the Blamer-in-Chief’s post-defeat presser statement is.

Hey, Obummer, YOUR OWN PARTY CONTROLS THE SENATE, you doofus, and that’s where it failed. You didn’t need a single GOP vote, as we saw with your jamdown of Obamacare, if YOUR OWN PARTY had supported this nonsense.

What a flaming cretin.

© Brian Baker 2013

Advertisements

Loony Aunt Diane Joins Crazy Uncle Joe

Just when you thought the socialist gun haters couldn’t get any crazier…

In my last two essays we explored Crazy Uncle Joe Biden’s loony advice on self defense: firing your double-barreled shotgun blindly in the air or through your front door.

Well, it turns out his grip on reality is pretty firm compared to Loony Aunt Diane Feinstein. In a meeting last Thursday of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she made the following profoundly amazing claim:

“We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds, and yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.”

th[6]It is??????

Is there a bag limit? Or can you just get as many as you like on any given day?

And here I was dumb enough to think it wasn’t ever legal to hunt humans, regardless of what kind of weaponry one was using. Silly me…

When it comes to guns, the loons on the Left seem to come completely unglued.

See Her Craziness in action here.

© Brian Baker 2013

Crazy Uncle Joe, Part Deux

Well, last week we discussed how Crazy Uncle Joe suggests that when you feel you may be in danger, you should take your loaded biden2double-barrel shotgun with you out to your balcony, and fire both barrels into the air, thereby rendering yourself exposed, vulnerable, out of ammo and defenseless.

Plus, of course, that load of shot blasted into the sky has to come down somewhere. An umbrella sure won’t be much help. Oh, well… who says it has to make any sense when you’re trying to disarm the public, right?

Anyway, proving that Crazy Uncle Joe can only be outdone by himself, he unveiled another startling self-defense strategy in an interview conducted by Field and Stream magazine (here).

V.P. BIDEN: “I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, ‘Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.’

“I said, ‘Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.’”

Whoa…….

I guess the pizza guy damned well better not hit Crazy Joe’s address by mistake…

Knock knock. BLAM! BLAM!

biden3Where does he come up with this stuff? I have to wonder if he’s been drinking window cleaner or something.

If nothing else, he’s certainly convinced me that at the least we need to tighten up the reporting requirements of mental instability for gun ownership restrictions, if someone with these kinds of nutty ideas can legally own guns.

Goooood grief….

© Brian Baker 2013

Crazy Uncle Joe

biden foot

On 19 February, our nation’s favorite Crazy Uncle Joe participated in an online Facebook “townhall” hosted by Parent’s Magazine.

Of course, he pontificated on how an AR-15 isn’t very useful for self-defense purposes, recommending one use a double-barreled shotgun instead. Have a look at the short clip below; the fun starts at the 0.55 mark.

Huh?… What?…

Instant replay, please…

“I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’”

So, let me see if I have this right. You load your double-barrel shotgun, walk outside the house in which you were safest, and fire both barrels into the air… leaving you exposed, defenseless, and out of ammo.

Sounds like a helluva plan to me.

I wonder if this is what he recommends to his Secret Service guardians. And if he does, how they manage to contain their gales of responding laughter…

© Brian Baker 2013

It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again

CommissarObama copyYou’ve really got to hand it to Commissar Obama. When it comes to going all in on his socialist agenda, he’s certainly wasting no time at all now that he never has to face the electorate again.

The latest example is the hysteria over the tragic shootings at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. There are several illustrative elements I think are worth considering. First, how is this incident any different from the one that took place in Aurora, Colorado in a movie theater during the premiere of the latest “Batman” movie (and of which I wrote a few essays ago)? Why didn’t that massacre, with a much higher body count, lead to these panicked Chicken Little gun control efforts from our socialist brethren?

I’ll tell you exactly why: that shooting took place only a month or two before the next national election, and the socialists know that gun control is an election-killer for them, whereas this event happened as absolutely far as possible from the next election, so they’re banking on the electorate’s short attention span in making this the most opportune time possible for them to try to realize their dream of imposing Draconian gun restrictions.

Then there’s the added benefit to Comrade Obama of using this event, and its headline-grabbing nature, to distract everyone from the very real and immediate problem that is facing this country, and his arrogance and ineptitude in dealing with it, namely our looming fiscal insolvency. It’s a classic case of presidential sleight-of-hand: “Hey, look! We need to save the kids and ban guns! Don’t pay any attention to what my other hand’s doing!”

It’s pure, sheer political cynicism, chicanery and hypocrisy of the first order.

Speaking of hypocrisy and chicanery, whatever happened to the investigation into “Operation Fast And Furious”, in which Eric Holder and the BATF ran thousands of full-auto assault weapons into Mexico in an effort to gin up a fraudulent case that American gun laws were too lax, resulting in the deaths of over 300 Mexican citizens and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?

Anyway, here are some points to consider. The Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings both took place in venues which are already under stringent gun restrictions. In fact, Connecticut already has an “assault weapon” ban in place ( Link ), as does Denver ( Link ), of which Aurora is a suburb and under its jurisdiction, under Municipal Code 38-130. So, in light of that, how would any new federal laws have prevented these killings? They wouldn’t have, plain and simple, as both shooters were already violating “assault weapon” bans.

I hear a lot blather about how the Second Amendment was written in the 18th Century and therefore only covers the technology of the time, i.e. flintlocks. Using that rationale, I guess the First Amendment right of free speech only covers hand-operated movable-type printing presses, then, and not the internet, TV, radio, movies, computers, automated printing presses, or telephones of any kind.

The blather continues with the usual nonsense that the Amendment only covers members of the active duty military and National Guard because it mentions a “well-regulated militia”. Here’s the complete text:

“Amendment II

“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.”

MinutemanAnd what is the “militia”? It is the body of the whole populace of able-bodied law-abiding citizens, as defined by the Founders in their contemporary writings and encoded by Title 10 US Code, Section 311. And, as mentioned in the Amendment, this is an issue of “a free state”; it doesn’t mention deer hunting anywhere. It’s about freedom from government tyranny, a condition assured by an armed populace capable of resisting oppression.

This is a country founded on the principle of equality, with no “privileged classes”, and the cops and soldiers are just citizens like everybody else. EVERY citizen has an equal right to equal weaponry. If the cops and soldiers can have them, so can any other law-abiding citizen.

Otherwise, we don’t have an “equal society”; we have a ruling class – the “privileged” – and a subject class – all the rest of us.

Thanks, but I think I’ll pass. I’m not anyone’s “subject”. I’m a free man, and citizen with full rights.

© Brian Baker 2013

Socialist Anti-Gun Vultures Swoop!

vulture

We’ve all heard about the tragic and horrible killings at an elementary school in Connecticut carried out by a nutjob who also killed his mother, all the killings carried out using guns he stole from her. It turns out he’d actually tried to legally buy at least one gun prior to the event and was turned down by the appropriate authorities.

As predictably as the sun rising in the east, the “usual suspects” in the gun-banning crowd swoopno guns onto the still-warm corpses with opportunistic shrieks of glee at their good fortune in finding another excuse to try to somehow stop madmen from carrying out their deranged acts, evidently under the illusion that curtailing gun rights is a magic panacea for insanity.

Democrat Senators Joe Lieberman, Diane Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer (of course) and Dick Durbin, as well as New York Mayor Michael “Big Gulp” Bloomberg, have already taken the lead in exploiting this mess to advance their leftist/socialist agenda of banning guns, Feinstein vowing to introduce her same old, tired “assault weapon ban” yet again when the Senate reconvenes next year.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the fact-checker. It turns out that “mass shootings” aren’t exactly the rising phenomenon those zealots claim they are. In fact, according to criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, and Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, there has been no increase in these incidents, and in fact “while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s.” ( Link )

Democrats have avoided gun control like the plague in recent years because they know it’s a political loser for them. I won’t go into all the stats; suffice it to say that the anti-gun sentiment in the country that peaked in about the 1970s has completely reversed itself in the last couple of decades. I think the only reasons these socialists are trying again now are twofold:thCA1J3QJR first, this is an especially terrible event, as it involved little kids. They’re hoping for an emotional backlash. And secondly, it’s a couple of years until the next election, and they’re banking on the electorate having a short memory. Of course, they’ve made that particular miscalculation with great regularity in the past. But then, the socialists definitely aren’t the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

Another thing to bear in mind: the killer tried to buy a gun, and the current system worked. He was prevented from doing so, and had to steal the guns he used. So… what law, exactly, do the gun-haters think is going to “solve” this problem? Logically, the only thing that could work would be for all the guns in the country to magically vanish. How would that be accomplished?

ripcon 2Any law banning gun ownership is already deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases. Further, just a week ago 7th District Court Justice Posner held that Illinois’s total ban on public gun carry was also unconstitutional.

We’ve also had quite a bit of experience on the efficacy of bans in general. If “bans” were effective, we wouldn’t have a drug problem in this country, nor would there be any illegal aliens. How’s that been working out?

Let’s also not forget the mass murderer in Norway, Anders Breivik, who last year killed 77 people during his rampage, using a bomb to kill 8 and guns to kill 69 more, most of them young teens. Compared to this country Norway has very strict gun laws, and yet…

I think it’s funny – as in “hypocritical” – how so many on the Left are using this event as a vehicle to advance their gun control agenda while at the same time they’ve remained absolutely mute on Obama’s and Holder’s Operation Fast & Furious, the gun-running scheme which resulted in the deaths of over 300 Mexican citizens and one US Border Patrol agent named Brian Terry. That operation was very possibly conceived to gin up a case for arguing that our domestic gun laws were too lax, a political exercise in every way, and it backfired when they lost control of it. Where was the outrage then?

I guess “outrage” is very selective in nature.

© Brian Baker 2012

People Died, Obama Lied

At last! A “shovel-ready” job! What is it, you ask? Why, it’s moving the mountain of bovine excrement Obama & Company are trying to use to cover the magnitude of his ineptitude and the depth of his dereliction, as well as the cost in lives, in the Beghazi-Gate and Fast And Furious debacles.

The Benghazi fiasco continues to escalate. Check out this
article
. Turns out Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security team (now all dead) had known for quite some time there was a lot of danger. They’d asked for security reinforcements. Turns out that during the day of, they’d radioed for help, and someone somewhere – the CIA claiming it wasn’t in THEIR chain of command – denied or refused to act on the SOS. Turns out American air and commando forces were only an hour away, but weren’t sent to the scene in spite of repeated radio requests for help during the several-hours-long attack by armed insurgents. Turns out there was a real-time info stream being transmitted, at least audio and perhaps video. People in DC knew what was happening while it was happening. But the folks in Benghazi were left hanging out to die. Uh-uh. No cavalry for YOU guys, Chris!

Now we know Obama’s response to the fabled “3 AM phone call”. Evidently, an event like this is a “not optimal … bump in the road” that can’t be allowed to interfere with Mr. Fundraiser’s campaign events, as within hours he was on his jet winging his way to Nevada to haul in the money.

After all, we do have our priorities…

Then the next couple of weeks were spent trying to bury the facts under the excrement pile by blaming the attack on a YouTube video that no one had ever heard of or seen. After all, Obama was the guy who “killed bin Laden”, right? And hadn’t that solved all our problems with Islamic jihadists?

Maybe not so much…

This episode is the perfect companion piece to the Fast & Furious mess, in which Obama’s ATF goons shipped a couple thousand guns – including full-auto submachine guns – to the Mexican drug cartels in an effort to gin up a case for the idea that American gun shops were the source for the illegal gun trade in Mexico, thereby justifying tougher gun control laws.

Unfortunately for The One, one US Border Patrol Agent named Brian Terry was killed by one of those guns, along with over 300 Mexican citizens. And the cover-up on that “program” continues, with Obama’s AG Eric Holder stonewalling Congress and a federal subpoena demanding the documents in the case.

What do these episodes have in common, other than piles of dead bodies? The refusal by Obama or any of his political cronies to accept any responsibility at all for what happened. Apparently, things just happen in a vacuum, with underlings somewhere in the chain of command making decisions that have costs in lives, and it all takes place without the Incompetent-in-Chief having any knowledge of what those people are doing.

So, let me see if I have this right. Obama is the guy who “killed bin Laden”, even though the actual mission was carried out by a SEAL team, a tactical unit pretty far down the chain of command. Yet at the same time, he’s also the guy who didn’t know anything about illegally shipping thousands of guns into a foreign sovereign nation, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of that country’s citizens and setting up a major international diplomacy problem; and he’s also the guy who didn’t know anything about an attack on our consulate – sovereign American soil in Libya – and the murder of our Ambassador and other personnel.

Well… which is it? Is he a stud, or a dud?

The Milli Vanilli of US Presidents.

© Brian Baker 2012

The UN Gun Control Treaty And You

(Dick Morris Is Nuts)

Political commentator Dick Morris (among others) has been running around all over the place bleating about how the passage of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is going to result in the loss of the gun rights currently enjoyed by Americans under the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

He was doing it again on Sean Hannity’s radio show on Friday, 3 Aug. Here’s Morris’s thesis:

Obama signs the treaty (which has currently died in the UN because of lack of agreement, actually) after he’s re-elected. For a treaty to bind the United States it must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, per the Constitution. But according to Morris – who acknowledges that such ratification is virtually impossible – under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties if the Senate fails to act on ratification the ATT will automatically take effect solely on the basis of Obama’s signature, and that Harry Reid will refuse to bring it to a vote if the Democrats retain control of the Senate. The treaty then becomes the “supreme law of the land”, superseding the Constitution and the Second Amendment and enabling Draconian gun laws, confiscation, the sky falling, etc.

Phew!… Follow me so far? Okay.

Morris’s thesis is so full of holes that if it were cheese it would be a premium Swiss. I don’t know where Morris comes up with this stuff. He must just “hear” something and, without doing any research at all, run wild with it. Anyway, here are the facts.

The Vienna Convention went into effect in 1980, but unfortunately for Morris’s thesis, even though this country is a signatory, the Convention has never been ratified by the Senate and so has absolutely no force and is not binding on this country, just like any other treaty that isn’t ratified. Period.

Further, there’s nothing that I’ve read in the Vienna Convention that does what Morris claims, anyway. Nothing at all about unratified presidential signatures making a treaty binding on a country whose own constitution requires treaty ratification. So his theory of an Obama signature on the ATT without Senate ratification actually meaning anything is ridiculous.

Morris also clearly doesn’t understand the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Let me quote it for you:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;…”

So far, so good. But here’s where the rubber meets the road:

“… and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

In other words, what it’s saying is that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties take precedence over STATE laws and constitutions. That’s all. There’s not one syllable in there about treaties having more power than the Constitution itself.

The reality is that no treaty can be used as a de facto amendment to the Constitution, as the Constitution is quite specific about how it can be amended and allows only two methods: the clearly detailed amendment process requiring 2/3 ratification by the states, or a constitutional convention. Any treaty that conflicts with the Constitution or its amendments is automatically null and void.

And in fact, in the 1957 landmark case of Reid v. Covert the Supreme Court held exactly that, stating “this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,”.

It’s time for Morris and others Chicken Littling this issue (yes, I’m looking at YOU, NRA!) to drop it. It’s ridiculous and meaningless, and lying for political gain is no less disgusting coming from the Right than it is from the Left. Frankly, I consider it even worse, because we have the facts on our side. We don’t have to resort to lying and political chicanery.

This stupid UN treaty has no more chance of affecting our national gun laws than I do of beating Shaq at basketball.

© Brian Baker 2012

When Seconds Count, The Cops Are Only Minutes Away

Unless you’ve been living in a cave you know that a bit over a week ago a lunatic waltzed into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire on the crowd that was attending the premiere of the latest Batman movie, killing a dozen and wounding scores more. And as predictably as the sun rising in the east, the lunatic fringe of gun-haters – always circling like buzzards while waiting for bodies to pounce on – immediately exploited the tragedy to try to advance their gun-ban agenda.

New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, always the calm voice of reason (that’s sarcasm, in case you missed it), called for cops to walk off the job until “lawmakers get guns off the streets” (Link). Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) also swooped down to dig into some of the carrion (Link). The New York Times, LA Times and Washington Post have been running foaming-at-the-mouth editorials almost daily screaming for more gun control.

But let’s take a look at the reality of the situation. I’m not going to debate the Second Amendment; that ship has sailed. In the Heller and McDonald decisions, the Supreme Court held that the amendment means exactly what it says in its simplest interpretation, and that people have the right to own guns. Period.

First of all, if the mere presence of guns is what causes violent crime, then the streets of Switzerland should be ankle-deep in blood. Private gun ownership there is mandatory. Every citizen of military age is required by law to own – and keep in their homes – military firearms including full-auto submachine guns, along with appropriate ammunition, and to maintain proficiency in their use. Even once they’re past military age, they’re given the option to retain those guns. A similar situation exists in Israel. Yet both nations have very low crime rates in spite of the fact that almost everyone’s armed, Switzerland’s being among the lowest in the world.

Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming forks for overeating. They’re both simply inanimate objects.

As a matter of fact, peer-reviewed studies have shown that there’s a positive correlation between gun ownership and lower crime rates, most notably those by Professor John Lott and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Privately-owned guns are successfully used somewhere between 750,000 – 1.2 million times annually by potential victims to prevent victimization. Since Florida started the parade of states that have loosened restrictions on concealed carry licenses back in 1987, 36 other states have done the same and the experience has been a reduction in the rates of violent crimes in every one of those states. Contrary to the anti-gun-hysterics’ assertions, an armed society is a polite society.

The reality of life is that when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. You are your own “first responder”. There were cops right outside that Aurora theater doing crowd control duties; the Virgina Tech cops waited 45 minutes before going in. If you’re counting on the cops to protect you, you’re probably out of luck.

Nor is that their duty. According to the Supreme Court, they owe no duty to individuals. Their duty is to society as a whole.

If more people were legally able to arm themselves and carry their weapons, there’d be fewer of us taking knives to a gun fight. And as the statistics have shown, more guns equal less crime.

There’s also the reality of the political scene to consider. Gun control has almost always been a huge political loser for its backers. Fearless duck hunter & gun rights advocateClinton owes his 1994 loss of congressional majorities at least in part to the “assault weapon” ban passed and enacted earlier that year by the Democrats. Gore and Kerry both credited the gun issue as being a significant factor in their losses. Who can forget the image of Kerry in brand-spanking-new cammies and carrying a borrowed shotgun for a photo op in a futile effort to convince voters he wasn’t anti-gun? Look at the accompanying picture; those cammies aren’t even wrinkled! How did he do that, if he actually hunted in them? Was there a dry cleaner out there in the woods? Pathetic…

I think the majority of Democrats wish the gun issue would just go away, and that they viewed the recent Supreme Court decisions as a blessing that got them off the hook for it. Greeceifornia Senator Dianne Feinstein – the rabid anti-gun attack-dog who said in 1995, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it.” – has backed away from the issue, saying on “Fox News Sunday” that she doesn’t believe the middle of an election year is a good time to renew the issue. “It’s a bad time to embrace a new subject,” she said. Especially in an election year, I’ll bet, and if that “subject” is guns. The ObaMessiah himself wants nothing to do with it, coming out with a mealy-mouthed and tepid endorsement of gun rights in the wake of Aurora.

According to a Reuters article dated 24 July 2012 (Link), “Gallup polls over the past two decades show the percentage of Americans who favor making gun control laws ‘more strict’ fell from 78 percent in 1990 to 44 percent in 2010.”. Further, “A Reuters-Ipsos poll in April found two of every three respondents had a favorable view of the NRA…”

Anti-gunners can read polls as easily as I can, and I think most Democrats nowadays look at gun control in the same way Superman looks at kryptonite: deadly toxic.

Let’s keep it that way.

© Brian Baker 2012