A gun owner holsters her weapon for no reason!

I found this story a few days ago, and immediately didn't like it.  A picture of a child with a shoulder-fired missile.  That was an immediate red flag that the article would be superfluous and full of nonsense.

" I can honestly tell you that I have not seen a gun sale that didn’t seem worthy of a short background check, nor have I seen a sale impeded by that process."

I'd hazard a guess that she's never seen a gun sale by a dealer WITHOUT a background check, either.  There is no 'loophole' for gun shows.  Any dealer MUST do a background check.  A private citizen selling to a private citizen does not have to do one.  If you think it's a 'loophole', then you won't like this article.  Whether at a gun show or at home selling to a friend, a private sale doesn't have to do a background check in many states.

"I have never seen any form of wild game hunted with one of the guns that was once banned under the previous assault weapons ban.I have never seen a sportsman with a magazine on his gun and I have never seen a competition shooter loaded down with more than a few bullets either."

And the Constitution mentions hunting as a reason for owning guns zero times.  Thanks for bringing up an irrelevant point.  Same with sportsman.  The Constitution says the following,

"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."

Nothing about hunting, nothing about target practice.  Maintaining freedom.  And let me add this; the weapons used by many colonists were superior to British muskets.  They were accurate long rifles that they had used to stay alive.  Even with a superior firearm, if you don't have a lifetime dedicated to combat that your adversary does, you're at a disadvantage.

"I have never seen a gun law that would impede any lawful or sane individual from any of the rational or common uses for guns  – and I come from a gun-toting Wyoming family."

Then my guess is you haven't seen the proposed laws or have a very limited view of 'rational' or 'common'.  What is considered rational and by whom?  What do you consider common?  Should we disregard the constitutional reason for guns just because it's not common or because someone doesn't see it as rational?

"Not one liberal gun control law would harm any of those people or their second amendment rights."

Really?  I own a gun that would be on the list.  Why should I get it taken away?



But NOW, she gets to her point.  She sucks people in with guns and switches to abortion.

"On the flip side, I can think of women I know, women I will never meet, women I’ve known and women I love dearly who are now and will be further impacted by the 694 new proposed laws infringing on our 14th amendment right to health and privacy which include a right to an abortion and other private health choices."

I'm assuming she's talking about section 1, which loosely fits... about as well as the 'good and welfare clause'

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm not sure how stopping abortions would deprive anyone of life.  Liberty?  Property?  Equal protection?  I'm really not sure how this fits.  If the mother's life is at risk, the people that make that decision are the family, plain and simple.  If I were in the situation, I'd choose my wife over the child because I make a commitment to her when I say "I do".  With the options we have for surgeries these days, I think this response, however, is based on emotions, not evidence.  I know a woman who was having serious issues with the birth of her child.  Were her life in danger, they would have performed a C-Section or induced, but it wasn't.
The question I have is this:  Is there another option?
If the baby can't be afforded, is there another option?  Adoption!
If the baby is a response to rape or incest, is there another option to keeping the baby?  Adoption!  Why should the baby be punished?
If the health of the mother is at risk, is there another option?  From my admittedly limited knowledge on the subject, I say yes.  The baby can be born early, not born 'naturally' (C-section), or killed.  Killing it should be the last option.

"Former VP wannabe, Paul Ryan, may dream of a country where abortion is never considered. I dream of one where the constitutionally protected right to life and the pursuit of happiness that the GOP is so concerned about when they think it applies to zygotes, is never threatened by a gun toting intruder in a first grade classroom.

I dream of an America where lock downs in elementary schools aren’t even considered.When living, breathing, first graders can learn to read, safe from lunatics and gunfire… Then I propose that we can stop and go out to the shooting range and blow some shit up just to let off steam in our oh so destructive patriotism."

Well, ma'am, it does exist.  If you look at mass shootings, they're held at 'soft targets' for a reason.  The person committing the atrocity is generally a coward who kills himself upon the cops' arrival (except for James Holmes who was not mentally stable) and wants as little interference as possible.  Many who commit these atrocities should have been put into insane asylums, not allowed to wander.  Many were on 'helpful drugs' which may not have been all that helpful.

What you're asking for, ma'am, is that law abiding citizens give up their rights for the minority who already isn't even allowed to own guns.  Lanza tried buying a gun and couldn't, he stole his mom's.  Loughner was pulled over before his killing spree and let go; he was also not allowed to buy ammunition.

What would the murder rate in this country be outside of a few cities?  What would the gun murder rate be without just 2 (Chicago and Washington DC)?  How come gun free cities like that have such high rates and how do you make criminals follow the laws passed by overzealous lawmakers?


I always laugh with a little sadness when people defend abortion and then demand strict gun control.  It's ok to kill a baby before birth, but after birth it has rights.  It's ok to choose to kill a baby before birth, but if a mother and unborn child are killed by a drunk driver, the driver of the vehicle can be charged with 2 homicides.  So why not just call any shooting from here on out a 'post birth abortion' and get on with life?  Far too many people don't see what Gosnell did wrong, killing babies born alive (among other terrible things).  Fortunately, he was actually charged with murder, as he should have been.

Until people can move past a petition such as this one, we're in sorry shape and are mislead more than we get any facts.  We're incredibly uninformed and it's on us to change it.  Make the Truth, not a political party, your agenda.  I'm wrong often, that's life.  But when I've found Truth, I'm never backing down.














For the record, yes, I know how offensive and hurtful it is to call any murder, especially that of a child by a gun, a 'post birth abortion'.  I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

I also can respect people who don't want guns, and I'm certainly ok with them abstaining.  It is THEIR choice.  We can live in peace right next to each other because that's what America is about.  Not agreeing about everything, but being able to get along for the greater good.

Resolute (Benghazi, Hillary)

What does it mean to be resolute?  What does it mean to tell the truth?

It would mean that you're against something no matter who promotes it, or for something regardless of who promotes it.  Most politicians are anything but resolute.  They toe the party line and make some really bad compromises on their supposed morals to 'help the party'; generally this is done to win elections.

To ponder more about what Hillary said, she gave 2 false answers.  What would it matter if there was a protest (there was not, and it was not reference with a video) or guys just out walking around deciding to kill people (this wasn't random, it was planned).  If one of those answers were indeed correct, maybe it might matter.  However, this was a pre-planned attack (similar to the attack in Egypt earlier in the day that was also blamed on a crappy video) and neither answer she gave was a correct one.

I was told today that Benghazi was not a scandal because under Bush, consulates/embassies were attacked several times.  While that's true, that's also irrelevant.  What makes this a scandal has nothing to do with the fact that this set of buildings (not a consulate) was attacked.  What makes this a scandal was the attempts by the POTUS and his administration to get the conversation started on limiting free speech by blaming a video. What makes it a scandal is how this administration believes they can hide the truth for a few weeks and then it doesn't matter because this country just isn't paying attention.

To know the truth, I believe it starts in Libya before Qaddafi was eliminated.  POTUS was eager to give the Libyan rebels weapons for some terrible reason.  No matter that they were at least partially tied to Al Qaeda, and some had been fighting against US forces in Iraq/Afghanistan.  What could go wrong?  With our military supplies, the rebels defeated Qaddafi's army and the country has since been run by various militias.  Not terribly long after, the uprising in Syria started.

Some time last year, POTUS wanted to help the rebels in Syria, except that it wasn't really legal.  Think Iran-Contra meets Fast and Furious, essentially Fast and Furious Global.  A few days before the 9/11/12 attacks, a Libyan ship docked in Turkey with 'humanitarian aid' and weapons.  There is reason to believe the Muslim Brotherhood and various AQ related groups were having a disagreement about who was to get what.  Perhaps even the same group not wanting to give up weapons in Libya for Syrian fighters.  Ambassador Stevens met with a Turkish leader (Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin).  About an hour after the meeting, the rebels attacked.

What makes this a scandal is the orders to not send in reinforcements in either attack.  First, the mission in Benghazi was attacked.  There were people ready to go at the CIA Annex not far ready to defend the 'consulate', but they were told not to.  They went anyway, and rescued a few people and were driven backwards into the CIA Annex.  Meanwhile, back at the mission, the 'mob' are looting and pull out Ambassador Stevens' dead body.  Some say that pretty terrible things were done to his body.

Several hours later (when reinforcements would have been there, aiding in clearing out the first compound's intelligence data), the annex came under attack.  Apparently, this was also denied any outside help, which lead to 2 more people dying.  The men that may have been moving assets into position to help were essentially fired.

So, Obama's administration came up with scenarios and false reports to cover it's backside from possibly breaking international law.  If you notice, it was said just about every time they mentioned a crappy YouTube video, they said "It had nothing to do with what the United States was doing".  Why would that need to be mentioned?  People caught in the act still plead not guilty, and the ones yelling the loudest that "I DIDN'T DO IT, I DIDN'T DO IT!" you can generally assume are lying.  Those who are innocent can put their trust in God, and the legal system.  Those who are guilty want as much public support as possible in hopes that the court of public opinion filters into the justice system.

Good morning

I'm finally off after 5 straight night shifts, so I'm going to bed.

However, with over 200 page views there's not a single comment.  If you have a comment or a question, please leave it.  If the page looks funky to you (since the #1 browser has been Safari) let me know and I'll try to adjust things.

What do you want for content?  Do you want me to sound less sarcastic?  Less like a "grumpy old man" (not that I've ever heard that before)?

And hence the title, I want to make you jump around in your seat a bit, it's Thursday for goodness' sake:

Hopefully this puts a smile on your face :)

What are our values?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

In a campaign event after the Benghazi attack, POTUS said this:  “We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

Firstly, Obama and his administration were still pinning this on a crappy youtube flick and seemingly hoping to reduce the first amendment to not include any criticism of Islam, because that would hurt their feelings.  Second, he and his administration were covering up 'Fast and Furious' on a more global scale.  Finally, the quote seems a bit arrogant as if the US were actually shining some light on the world with its values (while breaking international law selling guns the way they were).

I believe at one point, America may have been a shining city on a hill.  But at this point, the claim is laughable.

What are our values?

We kill babies and call it 'reproductive rights'.  We care more about securing the borders of foreign countries than our own.  We care more about taking care of special interests that support us than actually ensuring our children actually get an education.  We care more about being politically correct than actually correct.  We care far more about shitty tv than we do real life events that actually impact us.  We care more about feeling good and doing what feels 'natural' to us than remembering that our actions have consequences and doing the right thing.  No longer can we disagree or look for common ground, we must divide ourselves along economic, political, faith-based, location and age divides.

That's what happens when you abandon the Truth for a lie, I suppose.  We have no moral standing in the world, anymore.  Maybe instead of claiming to be the best (which 'is' in our grasp, I believe) we should actually attempt to better ourselves.  Let's work together, help the people around us.

The way we stop this is limiting the Federal government first.  By cutting spending, reforming the tax code (flat tax or Fairtax), securing our borders, and returning a majority of the government powers to the most local of governments, you return the power to the people.  Yes, We The People need to consolidate resources for things like a military, transportation, and the maintenance of the Republic.  However, the "Pursuit of Happiness" is about the framework for maintaining freedom.  The general welfare of the Republic is not about handouts, it's about doing what's best for the entire country and keeping it around to BE that shining city on a hill.  A shining city on a hill requires light, and I prefer a different Light to flames.

I don't like the character, and not even necessarily the show.  This speech is good.  It's got me thinking what makes us great, what makes us 'shine', what makes us mighty?  In the Old Testament, Israel got STEAMROLLED several times when they turned away from God.  Were there signs that it was about to occur?  If so, could we see them in America today?

Certainly not this.